ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Murine kidney transplantation is an important model for studies of transplantation immunobiology. The most challenging aspect of the difficult surgical procedure is the ureteric anastomosis. METHODS: Two different approaches to ureteric reconstruction are compared here. Method 1, Patch: this involves anastomosis of the donor ureter together with a patch of donor bladder to recipient bladder. Method 2, Implant: this utilizes a 5-0 suture to pull the ureter through the bladder wall. The ureter's peripheral tissue is then fixed to the bladder wall at the implant site with 10-0 micro-sutures. RESULTS: In animals transplanted with the patch method, the initial success rate, defined as survival up to the third post-operative day, was 79% (n = 62), whereas the initial success rate for the implant method was 86.1% (n = 101; P = 0.28). The death rate from unknown and/or unspecified causes in the initial period was 16.1% (10/62) for the patch method, and 8.9% (9/101) for the implant method (P = 0.21). The average donor/recipient operation time with the implant method was 14.8 ± 2.2/61.4 ± 4.7 min (76 min per transplant), whereas operation time with the patch method was 28.3 ± 2.4/77.8 ± 5.5 min (106 min per transplant; P < 0.001). The ureteric implant method resulted in a lower rate of urinary leak compared with the patch method (1.1% versus 10.2%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The ureteric implant method for mouse kidney transplantation is a reliable approach with at least as high a success rate as the bladder patch method and with a shorter operation time.
Subject(s)
Kidney Transplantation/methods , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Prostheses and Implants , Ureter/surgery , Urinary Bladder/surgery , Anastomosis, Surgical/methods , Animals , Disease Models, Animal , Follow-Up Studies , Male , Mice , Mice, Inbred BALB C , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Proportional Hazards Models , Random Allocation , Statistics, Nonparametric , Transplant Recipients , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The liver has long been recognized as having tolerogenic properties. We investigated whether recombinant adenoassociated virus (rAAV)-mediated expression of donor major histocompatibility complex in recipient livers could induce tolerance to donor-strain grafts. METHODS: Naive B10.BR (H-2) or B10.BR recipients primed with a H-2K-expressing (K) skin graft were injected with rAAV-expressing H-2K (rAAV-K) to induce K expression on hepatocytes 7 days before challenge with a K skin graft. K-specific responses were measured by interferon (IFN)-γ ELISpot and flow cytometric assessment of directly H-2K reactive cells. Fully allogeneic grafts from C57BL/6 (H-2) donors were transplanted onto longstanding B10.BR recipients of K skin to test for linked epitope suppression. RESULTS: rAAV-K-treated B10.BR mice accepted K skin grafts with increased median survival time (MST) more than 169 days compared to uninoculated (MST=18.5 days) and rAAV-K-treated controls (MST=19 days). rAAV-K-treated B10.BR animals primed with K skin grafts also accepted secondary K skin grafts in the long term (MST>100 days) compared to accelerated rejection in primed, uninoculated mice (MST=12 days). Treatments did not induce liver pathology, assessed by serum alanine aminotransferase levels and histology. IFN-γ ELISpot analysis of splenocytes from rAAV-K-treated mice indicated reduced responses to donor K antigen, but protection was not extended to fully allogeneic C57BL/6 skin or heart grafts, even in recipients that had accepted K skin grafts in the long term. CONCLUSIONS: High-level expression of donor major histocompatibility complex in recipient livers promotes tolerance to skin allografts, even in animals primed to produce a memory response. This provides proof of concept for an approach using liver-targeted gene delivery for tolerance induction to donor antigen.
