Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hydrolase participation in allograft rejection in rat penetrating keratoplasty

  • Laboratory Investigation
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

• Background: A rat model of orthotopic corneal graft rejection was used to investigate the alterations in hydrolase activity within the corneal graft or within cellular infiltrates during acute rejection. • Methods: The distribution of the lysosomal enzymes [acid phosphatase (AP), N-acetyl-ß-D-glucosaminidase (NAG), ß-glucuronidase (R-Glue), ß-galactosidase (ß-Gal), dipeptidylpeptidase II (DPPII)] and of the membrane-bound proteases [aminopeptidase M (APM), aminopeptidase A (APA), γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), dipeptidylpeptidase IV (DPPIV)] were investigated by histochemical methods in the grafts at 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 days following allogeneic transplantation. Serial sections of the grafts were also examined for RT1b, CD4, CD4+, CD8, CD11b/c and CD45, in order to determine hydrolase activity within infiltrating cells. • Results: Allogeneic grafts were invaded by macrophages, CD4- and CD8-positive lymphocytes. In contrast, syngeneic grafts, performed as a control, contained occasional lymphocytes and focal aggregations of macrophages around suture sites. The allogeneic cellular infiltrate stained intensely for AP and ALP; moderately for ß-Gluc, NAG and ß-Gal; and mildly for GGT, DPPII and APM in grafts at all postoperative times. Serial sectioning indicated that the majority of the lysosomal hydrolases were located in macrophages; AP, APM and GGT were, however, observed in lymphocytes. Vessel ingrowth could be observed with enzyme staining for AP, ß-Gluc, NAG, ALP, APA and APM. Hydrolase activity in the corneal endothelium served as an indicator of endothelial function during the rejection process. • Conclusion: Changes in normal hydrolase activities in corneal grafts in the rat model indicate decreasing corneal function during the rejection process. Hydrolases released from infiltrating cells contribute to the morphological disruption and, possibly, to graft rejection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ayliffe W, Alam Y, Bell EB, McLeod D, Hutchinson IV (1992) Prolongation of rat corneal graft survival by treatment with anti-CD4 monoclonal antibody. Br J Ophthalmol 76:602–606

    Google Scholar 

  2. Basu PK, Hasany SM (1971) Histochemical localization of hydrolytic enzymes during corneal graft reaction. Can J Ophthalmol 10:239–247

    Google Scholar 

  3. Basu PK, Taichman NS (1973) Hydrolytic enzymes in corneal graft rejection. Can J Ophthalmol 8:577–581

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bolkova A, Cejkova J (1977) Species variation of some acid hydrolases in the normal cornea. Ophthalmic Res 9:155–161

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brideau RJ, Carter PB, McMaster WR, Mason DW, Williams AF (1980) Two subsets of rat T lymphocytes defined with monoclonal antibodies. Eur J Immunol 10:609–615

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Callanan DG, Luckenbach MW, Fischer BJ, Peeler JS, Niederkorn JY (1989) Histopathology of rejected orthotopic corneal grafts in the rat. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 30:413–424

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chi HH, Teng CC, Katzin HM (1965) The fate of endothelial cells in corneal bomografts. Am J Ophthalmol 59:186–191

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cordell J, Falini B, Erber WN, Ghosh AK, Abulaziz Z, MacDonald S, Pulford KA, Stein H, Mason DY (1984) Immunoenzymatic labelling of monoclonal antibodies using immune complexes of alkaline phosphatase and monoclonal anti-alkaline phosphatase (APAAP complexes). J Histochem Cytochem 32:219–229

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Coupland SE, Penfold PL, Billson FA (1993) Hydrolases of anterior segment tissues in the normal human, pig and rat eye: a comparative study. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232:182–191

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fukomoto T, McMaster WR, Williams AF (1982) Mouse monoclonal antibodies against rat major histocompatibility antigens. Two Ia antigens and expression of la and Class I antigens in rat thymus. Eur J Immunol 12:237–243

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gronemeyer U, Piilhorn G, Müller-Ruchholtz W (1978) Allogeneic corneal grafting in inbred strains of rats. Histology of graft reaction. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 208:247–262

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hanna C, Irwin ES (1962) Fate of cells in the corneal graft. Arch Ophthalmol 68:810

    Google Scholar 

  13. Holland EJ, Chan CC, Wetzig RP, Palestine AG, Nussenblatt RB (1991) Clinical and immunohistologic studies of corneal rejection in the rat penetrating keratoplasty model. Cornea 10:374–380

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jefferies WA, Green JR, Williams AF (1985) Authentic T helper CD4 (W3/25) antigen on rat peritoneal macrophages. J Exp Med 162:117–127

    Google Scholar 

  15. Khodadoust AA (1968) Lamellar corneal transplantation in the rabbit. Am J Ophthalmol 66:1111–1117

    Google Scholar 

  16. Khodadoust AA (1973) The allograft rejection reaction: the leading cause of late failure of clinical corneal grafts. In: Porter R, Knight J (eds) Corneal graft failure. (Ciba Foundation Symposium) Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp: 151–167

    Google Scholar 

  17. Khodadoust AA, Silverstein AM (1969) Transplantation and rejection of individual cell layers of the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol 8:180–195

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lojda Z (1981) Proteinases in pathology — usefulness of histochemical methods. J Histochem Cytochem 29:481–493

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lojda Z, Gossrau R, Schiebler TH (1979) Enzymhistochemische Methoden. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Maumenee AE (1951) The influence of donor-recipient sensitization on corneal grafts. Am J Ophthalmol 34:142–152

    Google Scholar 

  21. McDonald JK, Barrett AJ (1985) Exopeptidases. (Mammalian proteases, a glossary and bibliography, vol 2) Academic Press, London, pp 62–144

    Google Scholar 

  22. McMaster WR, Williams AF (1979) Identification of la glycoproteins in rat thymus and purification from rat spleen. Eur J Immunol 9:426–433

    Google Scholar 

  23. Otsuka H, Muramatsu R, Usui M (1990) Immunohistochemical study of corneal allograft rejection in inbred rats. In: Usui M, Ohno S, Aoki K (eds) Ocular immunology today Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 147–151

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pahlitzsch T, Sinha P (1985) The alkali burned cornea: electron microscopical, enzyme histochemical, and biochemical observations. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 223:278–286

    Google Scholar 

  25. Paterson DJ, Jeffries WA, Green JR, Brandon MR, Corthesy P, Puklavec M, Williams AF (1987) Antigens of activated rat T-lymphocytes including a molecule of 50,000 Mr detected only on CD4 positive T blasts. Mot Immunol 24:1281–1290

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pepose JS, Nestor MS, Gardner KM, Foos RY, Pettit TH (1985) Composition of cellular infiltrates in rejected human corneal allografts. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 222:128–133

    Google Scholar 

  27. Polack FM (1962) Histopathological and histochemical alterations in the early stages of corneal graft rejection. J Exp Med 116:709–717

    Google Scholar 

  28. Polack FM, Smelser GK, Rose J (1964) Longterm survival of isotopically labelled stromal and endothelial cells in corneal homografts. Am J Ophthalmol 57:67–78

    Google Scholar 

  29. Raekallio J (1970) Enzyme histochemistry of wound healing. Prog Histochem Cytochem 1:51–151

    Google Scholar 

  30. Robinson AP, White TM, Mason DW (1986) Macrophage heterogeneity in the rat as defined by two monoclonal antibodies MRC OX-41 and MRC OX-42, the latter recognizing complement receptor type 3. Immunology 57:239

    Google Scholar 

  31. Simon JV, Spicer SS (1973) Activities of specific cell constituents in phagocytosis (endocytosis). Int Rev Exp Pathol 12:79–118

    Google Scholar 

  32. Streilein JW, McCulleyJP, Niederkorn JY (1982) Heterotopic corneal grafting in mice: a new approach to the study of corneal alloimmunity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 23:489

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sunderland CA, McMaster WR, Williams AF (1979) Purification with monoclonal antibody of a predominant leucocyte common antigen and glycoprotein from rat thymocytes. Eur J Immunol 9:155–159

    Google Scholar 

  34. Treseler PA, Sanfilippo F (1986) The expression of major histocompatibility complex and leucocyte antigens by cells in the rat cornea. Transplantation 41:248

    Google Scholar 

  35. Weissmann G, Dukor P (1970) The role of lysosomes in immune responses. Adv Immunol 12:283–331

    Google Scholar 

  36. Williams KA, Coster DJ (1985) Penetrating corneal transplantation in the inbred rat: a new model. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:23–30

    Google Scholar 

  37. Williams KA, Mann TS, Lewis M, Coster DJ (1986) The role of resident accessory cells in corneal allograft rejection in the rabbit. Transplantation 42:667–671

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical Ophthalmology, Klinikum Steglitz, Freie Universität Berlin, Hindenburgdamm 30, D-12200, Berlin, Germany

    Sarah Coupland & Friedrich Hoffmann

  2. Department of Clinical Ophthalmology, Sydney Eye Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Francis Billson

Authors
  1. Sarah Coupland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francis Billson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Friedrich Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coupland, S., Billson, F. & Hoffmann, F. Hydrolase participation in allograft rejection in rat penetrating keratoplasty. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 232, 614–621 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00193122

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00193122

Keywords

Search

Navigation