Advertisement

Immunologic Research

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 288–298 | Cite as

Chronic graft-specific cell-mediated immune response toward candidate xenogeneic biomaterial

  • Katherine V. Gates
  • Leigh G. Griffiths
Original Article

Abstract

Despite rabbits becoming an increasingly popular animal model, a flow cytometry panel that combines T cell markers (CD3, CD4, CD8, CD25, FOXP3) with a method for monitoring proliferation is lacking in this species. It has been shown that the rabbit model can be used to identify xenoantigens within bovine pericardium (BP), a common biological heart valve replacement material; however, these methods rely on monitoring the humoral immune response. The development of a rabbit T cell proliferation assay has utility in monitoring graft-specific cell-mediated immune responses toward bovine pericardium. Isolation and culture conditions were optimized to avoid cell death, red blood cell contamination, and non-specific proliferation. Effect of cell culture and stimulation on distribution and intensity of T cell markers was analyzed and compared between cells isolated from naïve and BP-immunized rabbits. Submaximal levels (0.25 μg/mL) of concavalin A were used to stimulate proliferation toward BP extract, with resultant proliferation compared between naïve and BP-immunized rabbits. Density stratification followed by ammonium potassium chloride (ACK) lysis yielded the greatest number of viable peripheral blood mononuclear cells with the least amount of erythrocyte contamination. Flat-bottomed plates were necessary to reduce non-specific proliferation in culture. T cells responded appropriately to maximal mitogenic stimulation (5 μg/mL concavalin A). Interestingly, immunization increased the intensity of FOXP3 in T regulatory cells compared to cells from naïve animals. With addition of submaximal levels of concavalin A, T cells from immunized rabbits proliferated in response to BP protein extract, while cells from naïve rabbits did not. In immunized rabbits, not only did more CD4+ T cells proliferate in response to BP re-stimulation, but the intensity of CD25 was increased indicating cell activation. This research provides a functional cell-mediated screening assay for assessment of BP-based biomaterials in rabbits, overcoming the limitations of previous humoral immune system-based assessments of biomaterial antigenicity in this important experimental animal species.

Keywords

Rabbit T lymphocytes T regulatory cells Proliferation Bovine pericardium 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research supported by grant number R01HL115205 from the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and grant number 5T32OD010931-10 from the NIH.

Authors’ contributions

KYG and LGG were equally involved in the design and conception of the research, although KYG predominantly performed the collection and analysis of data. KYG contributed to the drafting and refinement of the manuscript with the assistance and oversight of LGG, who gave final approval of the version to be published.

Compliance with ethical standards

All animal procedures were conducted in accordance with the guidelines established by University of California, Davis IACUC, Mayo Clinic IACUC and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12026_2018_8985_MOESM1_ESM.docx (246 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 246 kb).

References

  1. 1.
    Diemer P, Markoew S, Le DQ, Qvist N. Poly-epsilon-caprolactone mesh as a scaffold for in vivo tissue engineering in rabbit esophagus. Dis Esophagus. 2015;28(3):240–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dote.12172.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mapara M, Thomas BS, Bhat KM. Rabbit as an animal model for experimental research. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9(1):111–8.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.92960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cegielski M, Dziewiszek W, Zabel M, Dzięgiel P, Iżycki D, Zatoński M, et al. Experimental application of xenogenous antlerogenic cells in replacement of auricular cartilage in rabbits. Xenotransplantation. 2008;15(6):374–83.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2008.00497.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Griffiths LG, Choe LH, Reardon KF, Dow SW, Christopher Orton E. Immunoproteomic identification of bovine pericardium xenoantigens. Biomaterials. 2008;29(26):3514–20.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2008.05.006.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong ML, Wong JL, Vapniarsky N, Griffiths LG. In vivo xenogeneic scaffold fate is determined by residual antigenicity and extracellular matrix preservation. Biomaterials. 2016;92:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.03.024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dalgliesh AJ, Liu ZZ, Griffiths LG. Magnesium presence prevents removal of antigenic nuclear-associated proteins from bovine pericardium for heart valve engineering. Tissue Eng A. 2017;23(13–14):609–21.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2016.0405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xing JC, et al. Anti-infection tissue engineering construct treating osteomyelitis in rabbit tibia. Tissue Eng A. 2013;19(1–2):255–63.  https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tea.2012.0262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cissell DD, Hu JC, Griffiths LG, Athanasiou KA. Antigen removal for the production of biomechanically functional, xenogeneic tissue grafts. J Biomech. 2014;47(9):1987–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.10.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong ML, Griffiths LG. Immunogenicity in xenogeneic scaffold generation: antigen removal vs. decellularization. Acta Biomater. 2014;10(5):1806–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2014.01.028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wong ML, Wong JL, Athanasiou KA, Griffiths LG. Stepwise solubilization-based antigen removal for xenogeneic scaffold generation in tissue engineering. Acta Biomater. 2013;9(5):6492–501.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2012.12.034.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardin C, Ricci S, Ferroni L, Guazzo R, Sbricoli L, de Benedictis G, et al. Decellularization and Delipidation protocols of bovine bone and pericardium for bone grafting and guided bone regeneration procedures. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132344.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132344.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hulsmann J, et al. Transplantation material bovine pericardium: biomechanical and immunogenic characteristics after decellularization vs. glutaraldehyde-fixing. Xenotransplantation. 2012;19(5):286–97.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2012.00719.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhu D, Jin L, Wang X, Xu L, Liu T. Combined anticalcification treatment of bovine pericardium with decellularization and hyaluronic acid derivative. Biomed Mater Eng. 2014;24(1):741–9.  https://doi.org/10.3233/BME-130862.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pagoulatou E, Triantaphyllidou IE, Vynios DH, Papachristou DJ, Koletsis E, Deligianni D, et al. Biomechanical and structural changes following the decellularization of bovine pericardial tissues for use as a tissue engineering scaffold. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2012;23(6):1387–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-012-4620-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stone KR, Walgenbach AW, Abrams JT, Nelson J, Gillett N, Galili U. Porcine and bovine cartilage transplants in cynomolgus monkey: I. A model for chronic xenograft rejection. Transplantation. 1997;63(5):640–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-199703150-00005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Badylak SF, Gilbert TW. Immune response to biologic scaffold materials. Semin Immunol. 2008;20(2):109–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2007.11.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manji RA, Zhu LF, Nijjar NK, Rayner DC, Korbutt GS, Churchill TA, et al. Glutaraldehyde-fixed bioprosthetic heart valve conduits calcify and fail from xenograft rejection. Circulation. 2006;114(4):318–27.  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.549311.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simon P, Kasimir MT, Seebacher G, Weigel G, Ullrich R, Salzer-Muhar U, et al. Early failure of the tissue engineered porcine heart valve SYNERGRAFT in pediatric patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003;23(6):1002–6; discussion 1006.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(03)00094-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zaidi AH, et al. Preliminary experience with porcine intestinal submucosa (CorMatrix) for valve reconstruction in congenital heart disease: histologic evaluation of explanted valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148(5):2216–4. 2225 e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Courtman DW, Errett BF, Wilson GJ. The role of crosslinking in modification of the immune response elicited against xenogenic vascular acellular matrices. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;55(4):576–86.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(20010615)55:4<576::AID-JBM1051>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dahm M, Lyman WD, Schwell AB, Factor SM, Frater RW. Immunogenicity of glutaraldehyde-tanned bovine pericardium. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1990;99(6):1082–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teixeira L, Marques RM, Águas AP, Ferreira PG. Regulatory T cells are decreased in acute RHDV lethal infection of adult rabbits. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2012;148(3–4):343–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2012.05.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nesburn AB, Bettahi I, Dasgupta G, Chentoufi AA, Zhang X, You S, et al. Functional Foxp3+ CD4+ CD25(bright+) “natural” regulatory T cells are abundant in rabbit conjunctiva and suppress virus-specific CD4+ and CD8+ effector T cells during ocular herpes infection. J Virol. 2007;81(14):7647–61.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.00294-07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011. p. 1–246.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang Y, Bao J, Wu X, Wu Q, Li Y, Zhou Y, et al. Genipin crosslinking reduced the immunogenicity of xenogeneic decellularized porcine whole-liver matrices through regulation of immune cell proliferation and polarization. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):24779.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24779.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dalgaard TS, Norup LR, Rubbenstroth D, Wattrang E, Juul-Madsen HR. Flow cytometric assessment of antigen-specific proliferation in peripheral chicken T cells by CFSE dilution. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2010;138(1–2):85–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetimm.2010.07.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin YZ, Deng XL, Shen N, Lü XL, Zhao LP, Kong XG, et al. Development of a CFSE-based flow cytometry for evaluating EIAV-stimulated proliferation of T lymphocytes. Xi Bao Yu Fen Zi Mian Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008;24(11):1044–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andersen MN, et al. Elimination of Erroneous Results in Flow Cytometry Caused by Antibody Binding to Fc Receptors on Human Monocytes and Macrophages. Cytometry Part A. 2016;89a(11):1001–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu FC, Hoyt DB, Coimbra R, Junger WG. Proliferation assays with human, rabbit, rat, and mouse lymphocytes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 1996;32(9):520–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02722976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Baetselier P, Vaeck M, de Smet W, Ron Y. Antigen-induced proliferation assay for rabbit T lymphocytes. I Characteristics of the response. Immunology. 1980;41(4):997–1003.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ulmer AJ, Scholz W, Ernst M, Brandt E, Flad HD. Isolation and subfractionation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) by density gradient centrifugation on Percoll. Immunobiology. 1984;166(3):238–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0171-2985(84)80042-X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mendez-David I, et al. A method for biomarker measurements in peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated from anxious and depressed mice: beta-arrestin 1 protein levels in depression and treatment. Front Pharmacol. 2013;4:124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maggioli MF, Palmer MV, Thacker TC, Vordermeier HM, Waters WR. Characterization of effector and memory T cell subsets in the immune response to bovine tuberculosis in cattle. PLoS One. 2015;10(4):e0122571.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122571.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Janot C, Blancou J, Aubert MF. Cellular immunity in the red fox vaccinated against rabies. Studies with the lymphocyte transformation test. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis. 1982;5(1–3):129–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-9571(82)90026-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sloane ED, Muscoplat CC, Kaneene JM, Klausner DJ, Thoen CO, Johnson DW. In vitro stimulation of bovine peripheral blood lymphocytes: comparison of round- and flat-bottom microtiter plates for detection of tuberculin hypersensitivity. J Clin Microbiol. 1978;7(2):172–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kim TJ, et al. Homotypic NK cell-to-cell communication controls cytokine responsiveness of innate immune NK cells. Sci Rep. 2014;4:7157.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Uppal SS, Verma S, Dhot PS. Normal values of CD4 and CD8 lymphocyte subsets in healthy indian adults and the effects of sex, age, ethnicity, and smoking. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2003;52(1):32–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    D'Acquisto F, Crompton T. CD3(+)CD4(−)CD8(−) (double negative) T cells: Saviours or villains of the immune response? Biochem Pharmacol. 2011;82(4):333–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2011.05.019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rabinovitch PS, et al. Heterogeneity among T cells in intracellular free calcium responses after mitogen stimulation with PHA or anti-CD3. Simultaneous use of indo-1 and immunofluorescence with flow cytometry. J Immunol. 1986;137(3):952–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Letourneau S, et al. IL-2-and CD25-dependent immunoregulatory mechanisms in the homeostasis of T-cell subsets. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123(4):758–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2009.02.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Herwijnen MJ, et al. In vivo induction of functionally suppressive induced regulatory T cells from CD4+CD25- T cells using an Hsp70 peptide. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0128373.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128373.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ivanova I, Seledtsova G, Mamaev S, Shishkov A, Seledtsov V. Immune responses induced by T-cell vaccination in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(5):1221–7.  https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.28299.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sultani M, et al. Anti-inflammatory cytokines: important immunoregulatory factors contributing to chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal mucositis. Chemother Res Pract. 2012;2012:490804.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shalev I, Schmelzle M, Robson SC, Levy G. Making sense of regulatory T cell suppressive function. Semin Immunol. 2011;23(4):282–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2011.04.003.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Itani HA, Harrison DG. Memories that last in hypertension. American Journal of Physiology-Renal Physiology. 2015;308(11):F1197–9.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.00633.2014.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Croft M, Bradley LM, Swain SL. Naive versus memory CD4 T cell response to antigen. Memory cells are less dependent on accessory cell costimulation and can respond to many antigen-presenting cell types including resting B cells. J Immunol. 1994;152(6):2675–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Croft M. Activation of naive, memory and effector T cells. Curr Opin Immunol. 1994;6(3):431–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0952-7915(94)90123-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wong ML, Leach JK, Athanasiou KA, Griffiths LG. The role of protein solubilization in antigen removal from xenogeneic tissue for heart valve tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2011;32(32):8129–38.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2011.07.030.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Christie D, Zhu J. Transcriptional regulatory networks for CD4 T cell differentiation. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2014;381:125–72.  https://doi.org/10.1007/82_2014_372.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Ciabattini A, Pettini E, Medaglini D. CD4(+) T cell priming as biomarker to study immune response to preventive vaccines. Front Immunol. 2013;4:421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Allan SE, Broady R, Gregori S, Himmel ME, Locke N, Roncarolo MG, et al. CD4+ T-regulatory cells: toward therapy for human diseases. Immunol Rev. 2008;223(1):391–421.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00634.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Driesen J, Popov A, Schultze JL. CD25 as an immune regulatory molecule expressed on myeloid dendritic cells. Immunobiology. 2008;213(9–10):849–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imbio.2008.07.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Shipkova M, Wieland E. Surface markers of lymphocyte activation and markers of cell proliferation. Clin Chim Acta. 2012;413(17–18):1338–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2011.11.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pinheiro A, Neves F, Lemos de Matos A, Abrantes J, van der Loo W, Mage R, et al. An overview of the lagomorph immune system and its genetic diversity. Immunogenetics. 2016;68(2):83–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00251-015-0868-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Veterinary Medicine: Medicine and EpidemiologyUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Cardiovascular DiseasesMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations