4.8 Article

Xenotransplantation of layer-by-layer encapsulated non-human primate islets with a specified immunosuppressive drug protocol

期刊

JOURNAL OF CONTROLLED RELEASE
卷 258, 期 -, 页码 10-21

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2017.04.021

关键词

Layer-by-layer; Polyethylene glycol; Non-human primate pancreatic islets; Xenotransplantation

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R & D Project of the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) under the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI12C1853]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Islet transplantation is as effective as but also less immunogenic than pancreas transplantation for the treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus. However, as the complete elimination of immunogenicity still remains a major obstacle in islet transplantation, layer-by-layer encapsulation (LbL) of pancreatic islets using biocompatible polymers offers a rational approach to reducing host immune response towards transplanted islets. We investigated the effect of LbL of non-human primate (NHP) islets on reducing immunogenicity as a preclinical model since NHPs have close phylogenetic and immunological relationship with humans. LbL with three-layers of polyethylene glycol (PEG) molecules (SH-6-arm-PEG-NHS, 6-arm-PEG-catechol and linear PEG-SH) showed a uniform nano-shielding on islets without the loss of viability or function of islets. An immunosuppressive drug protocol was also combined to improve the survival rate of the transplanted islets in vivo. A xenorecipient (C57BL/6 mice) of LbL islet transplanted along with our immunosuppressive drug protocol showed 100% survival rate for 150 days after transplantation. On the other hand, naked islet recipients showed poor survival time of 5.5 +/- 1.4 days without drugs and 77.5 +/- 42 days with the drug protocol. Immunohistochemistry of the transplanted grafts and serum cytokine concentration demonstrated less immunogenicity in the LbL islet transplanted recipients compared with the naked islet ones.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据