Histopathology of Kidney Xenograft Rejection

  • S. Larsen
  • H. Starklint


The morphological and immunological changes developing in the renal graft, evaluated qualitatively as well as quantitatively, depend on the genetic relationship between donor and recipient. Based on the genetic differences, five transplantation systems can be defined:
  1. 1.

    Isogeneic. Tissue transplanted from one individual to another individual with an identical genetic constitution (monovular twins)

  2. 2.

    Autogeneic. Tissue transplanted from one place to another in the same individual

  3. 3.

    Allogeneic. Tissue transplanted from one individual to another of the same species

  4. 4.

    Xenogeneic (concordant). Tissue transplanted to an individual of a closely related species (e.g., chimpanzé to man)

  5. 5.

    Xenogeneic (discordant). Tissue transplanted to an individual of a distantly related species (e.g., pig to man)



Acute Rejection Capillary Loop Rabbit Kidney Renal Allograft Rejection Hyperacute Rejection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Brun, C, Olsen, S. Atlas of Renal Biopsy. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1981Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalmasso, A.P. The complement system in xenotransplantation. Immunopharmacology, 24, 149, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosengard, A.M., Cary, N.R.B., Langford, G.A., et al. Tissue expression of human complement inhibitor, decay-accelerating factor, in transgenic pigs. Transplantation, 59, 1325, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Solez, K., Axelsen, R.A., Benediktsson, H, et al. International standardization of criteria for the histologic diagnosis of renal allograft rejection: The Banff working classification of kidney transplant pathology. Kidney Internat. 44, 411, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bogman, M.J.J.T., Dooper, I.M.M. Banff classification for the histological diagnosis of renal graft rejection: what are the advantages? Nephrol Dial Transplant 10, 1291, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dieperink, H., Steinbrüchel, D., Starklint, H., Larsen, S. Kemp, E. Improvement in hare-to-rabbit kidney transplant survival. Transplant Proc 19, 1140, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green, C.J., Kemp, E., Kemp, G., et al. Prolongation of concordant renal xenografts in rabbit recipients by a short course of cyclosporin A treatment. In Cyclosporin A. D.J.G. White (ed.), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1982, p. 155Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jørgensen, K.A., Kemp, E., Olsen, T.K., et al. Activation of fibrinolysis during xenoper-fusion. Thrombosis Res. 46, 473, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jørgensen, K.A., Kemp, E., Barfort, P., et al. Xeno- and auto-perfusion of rabbit kidney. Machine perfusion with blood at 37°C. Acta. Path. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. (Sect. A) 93, 305, 1985Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jørgensen, K.A., Kemp, E., Barfort, P., et al. On the role of platelets and leucocyte in renal xenoperfusion. Acta Path. Microbiol. Immunol. Scand. (Sect. A) 94, 223, 1986Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jørgensen, K.A., Kemp, E., Barfort, P., et al. The survival of pig to rabbit renal xenografts during inhibition of thromboxane synthesis. Thrombosis Res. 32, 585, 1983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jørgensen, K.A., Kemp, E., Barfort, P., et al. Platelet aggregation is not essential for xenograft rejection. Thrombosis Res., 43, 87, 1986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kemp, E., Kemp, G., Starklint, H., Larsen, S. Immunosuppression with cobra venom factor, anti-platelet-aggregator and cyclosporin A in renal xenotransplantation. Transplant Proc. 14, 116, 1982Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kemp, E., Kemp, G., Larsen, S., Starklint, H., Green, C.J. Xeno-banking. In Organ Preservation, Present and Future. D.E Pegg, J.A. Jacobsen, N.A. Halasz (eds.). MTP Press Ltd., London, p. 291, 1982Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kemp, E., Kemp, G., Larsen, S. Survival of discordant renal xenografts up to 3 days: assessment of function, light and immunofluorescent microscopy. Scand J. Urol. Nephrol. (Suppl.) 54, 150, 1980Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kemp, E., Starklint, H., Larsen, S., Dieperink. H. Cyclosporine in concordant renal hare-to-rabbit xenotransplantation: prolongation and modification of rejection, and adverse effects. Transplant Proc. 17, 1351, 1985Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kemp, E., Steinbrüchel, D., Starklint, H., et al. Renal xenograft rejection: prolonging effect of Captopril, ACE-inhibitors, prostacyclin, and cobra venom factor. Transplant Proc. 19, 4471, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kemp, E., White, D., Dieperink, H., et al. Delayed rejection of rabbit kidneys transplanted into baby pigs. Transplant Proc. 19, 1143, 1987PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsen, S., Starklint, H., Dieperink, H., Kemp, E. Immunofluorescence microscopy in experimental renal allo-and xenografts. Transplant Proc. 22, 1061, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Larsen, S. Immunofluorescent microscopy findings in minimal or no change-disease and slight generalized mesangioproliferative glomerulonephritis. Acta Path. Microbiol. Scand. (Sect. A), 86, 531, 1978Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Starklint, H., Larsen, S., Jorgensen, K.A., Dieperink, H. Kemp, E. Flush perfusion of rabbit kidneys with auto-, allo-and xenogeneic blood. Scand J Urol Nephrol 25, 45, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dieperink, H. Cyclosporin A nephrotoxicity. Dan. Med. Bull. 36, 235, 1989PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Salomon, S., Steinbrüchel, D.A., Nielsen, B., Lillevang, S., Kemp, E. The effect of leflu-nomide, cyclosporine and splenectomy in two different organ systems of concordant xenotransplantation in rats. Transplant Proc, in pressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Larsen
  • H. Starklint

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations