Xenograft recipients produce large amounts of high-affinity anti-Gal IgG in response to Galα1-3Galβ1- 4GlcNAc-R (α-gal) epitopes on the graft. In contrast, ABO-mismatched allograft recipients undergo “accommodation,” a state of very weak immune response to ABO antigens. These differences in anti-carbohydrate immune response were studied in α1,3galactosyltransferase knock-out mice. Pig kidney membranes administered to these mice elicited extensive production of anti-Gal IgG, whereas allogeneic kidney membranes expressing α-gal epitopes elicited only a weak anti-Gal IgM response. Anti-Gal IgG response to xenograft membranes depended on helper T cell activation and was inhibited by anti-CD40L antibody. These T cells were activated by xenopeptides and not by α-gal epitopes. Moreover, allogeneic cell membranes manipulated to express xenoproteins also induced anti-Gal IgG response. Xenoglycoproteins with α-gal epitopes are processed by anti-Gal B cells. Xenopeptides presented by these cells activate a large repertoire of helper T cells required for the differentiation of anti-Gal B cells into cells secreting anti-Gal IgG. Alloglycoproteins with α- gal epitopes have very few immunogenic peptides and fail to activate helper T cells. Similarly, ineffective helper T-cell activation prevents a strong immune response to blood group antigens in ABO-mismatched allograft recipients, thus enabling the development of accommodation.
Masahiro Tanemura, Dengping Yin, Anita S. Chong, Uri Galili
Usage data is cumulative from December 2023 through December 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 259 | 60 |
107 | 27 | |
Figure | 308 | 16 |
Citation downloads | 51 | 0 |
Totals | 725 | 103 |
Total Views | 828 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.