Advertisement

Ponyclonal Antilymphocyte Antibodies

  • Paul Morrissey
  • Anthony P. Monaco

Abstract

Polyclonal antilymphocyte antibodies (henceforth ALS/ALG or ATS/ATG) was the first biological immunosuppressive agent introduced into clinical transplantation with the exception of ionizing radiation. Indeed, ALS was the first heterologous antibody used for immunosuppressive effects in man. There now exist over thirty years experience in the clinical use of antilymphocyte antibodies in solid organ transplantation and in selected autoimmune disorders. An enormous literature exists which has established clear-cut and widely accepted indications for the use of ALS in man. A number of commercially manufactured antilymphocyte (ALS/ALG) and antithymocyte (ATS/ATG) preparations are currently available. In addition, many large transplant programs still manufacture their own preparations for use in their own programs. It is conservatively estimated that between 300,000 and 400,00 transplant patients have been treated with various forms of ALG or ATG. Thus polyclonal antilymphocyte preparations have had and continue to have a significant impact in clinical transplantation.

Keywords

Acute Rejection Mycophenolate Mofetil Delay Graft Function Renal Allograft Survival Antilymphocyte Antibody 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brent, L, Immunoregulation: The Search for the Holy Grail (Chapter 6) In: A history of Transplantation Immunology, Academic Press, 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Metchnikoff, E. Etudes sur la resorption des cellules. Ann Inst Pasteur 13:737–743,1899Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Woodruff, MFA and Forman, B. Effects of antilymphocyte serum on suspension of lymphocytes in vitro. Nature 168:36–38,1958Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Interbitzen, T. Int Arch Allergy 4:150–153,1956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Waksman, B and Arboysm S. Antisera to lymphocytes. In: Mechanisms of Antibody Formation. Czech Acad Sci Prague 1960 pg 165–187.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Waksman, BH, Arboys, S, and Aronson, BG. The use of specific lymphocyte antisera to inhibit hypersensitivity reactions of the delayed type. J Exp Med 114:997–1001, 1961PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woodruff, MFA and Anderson, NE. Effects of lymphocyte depletion by thoracic duct fistula and administration of antilymphocyte serum on the survival of skin homografts in rats. Nature 200:702–704, 1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woodruff, MFA and Anderson, NE. Antilymphocyte serum and its mode of action. Ann NY Acad Sci 130:119–121, 1964Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gray, JG, Monaco, AP, and Russell, PS. Heterologous mouse antilymphocyte serum to prolong skin homografts. Surg Forum 15:142–143, 1964PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sach, JH, Fillipone, DR, and Hume, DM. Studies on the immune destruction of lymphoid tissue. I. Lymphocytotoxic effect of rabbit anti-rat lymphocyte sera. Transplantation 2:60–66, 1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gray, JG, Monaco, AP, and Wood, ML. Studies on heterologous antilymphocyte serum in mice. I. In vitro and in vivo properties. J Immunol 96(2):217–220, 1966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Monaco, AP, Wood, ML, Gray, JG et al. Studies on heterologous antilymphocyte serum in mice. II. Effect on the immune response. J Immunol 96(2):229–238, 1966PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monaco, AP, Abbott, WM, Otherson, HB et al. Antisera to lymphocytes: Prolonged survival of canine allografts. Science 153(741)1264–1267, 1966PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Monaco, AP, Wood, ML, van der Werf, BA et al. Recent observations of antilymphocyte serum in mice, dogs, and man. In: GEW Wolstenholme and M O’Connor (eds). Ciba Foundation Study Group, No. 29, Antilymphocyte Serum, London, A. Churchill, 1967;111–123.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonnefoy-Berard, N, Vincent, C, and Revillard, JP. Antibodies against functional leukocyte surface molecules in polyclonal antilymphocyte and antithymocyte globulins. Transplantation 51(3): 669–673, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rebellato, LM, Gross, V, Verbanac, KM et al. A comprehensive definition of the major antibody specificities in polyclonal rabbit antithymocyte globulin. Transplantation 57(5):685–689, 1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Revillard, JP, Bonnefoy-Berard, N, Preville, X et al. Immunopharmacology of Thymoglobulin. Grafts (Supplement) 2(1):6–9, 1999Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonnefoy-Berard, N, Vincent, C, Verrier, B et al. Monocyte independent T cell activation by polyclonal antithymocyte globulin. Cell Immunol 143(2):272–283, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Genestier, L, Fournell, S, Flacher, M et al. Induction of Fas (Apo-1, CD95)-mediated apoptosis of activated lymphocytes by polyclonal antilymphocyte globulin. Blood 91(7):2360–2368, 1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Merion, RM, Howell, T, and Bromberg, JS. Partial T cell activation and anergy induction by polyclonal antithymocyte globulin. Transplantation 65(11): 1481–1489, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bonnefoy-Berard, N, Genestier, L, Flacher, M et al. Apoptosis induced by polyclonal antilymphocyte globulins in human B cell lines. Blood 83(4): 1051–1059, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller, TF. Long-term T cell dynamics following the use of polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. Graft (supplement) 2(1):15–20, 1999Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rahman, GF, Hardy, MA, and Cohen, DJ. Administration of equine anti-thymocyte globulin via peripheral vein in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 69(9): 1958–1960, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forsthe, JL. ATG dosing; Daily or less frequently? Graft (supplement) 2(1):10–14, 1999Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Szczech, LA, Berlin, JA, Aradhye, S et al. Effect of antilymphocyte induction on renal allograft survival: a meta-analysis. J Amer Soc Neph 8(11): 1771–1777, 1997.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thibauddin, D, Alamartine, E, De Fellippis, J et al. Advantage of antilymphocyte induction in sensitized kidney recipients; a randomized prospective study comparing induction with and without antilymphocyte globulin. Nephrol Dial Transplant 13(3):711–715, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cardella, CJ, Cattran, D, Fenton, SA et al. Induction with rabbit antilymphocyte sera reduces rejection episodes in immunologically low risk renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 29(7A):29S–31S, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Florence, LS, Howard, DR, Chapman, PH et al. Presentation at 23rd American Society of Transplant Surgeons, Chicago, May 1997Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gaber, AO, First, MR, Tesi, RJ et al. Results of the double-blind, randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial of thymoglobulin versus ATGam in the treatment of acute graft rejection episodes after renal transplantation. Transplantation 66(1): 29–37, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Birkeland, SA. Steroid-free immunosuppression after kidney transplantation with antithymocyte globulin induction and cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil maintenance therapy. Transplantation 66(9):1207–1210,1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan, DC, Flavin, K, Lowell, JA et al. Comparison of Thymoglobuline and ATGam for induction in renal transplantation. Graft (supplement) 2(1):21–23, 1999Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Woodle, ES, First, MR, Gaber, AO et al. 12 month outcome of the double blind, randomized multicenter rejection trial of Thymoglobulin versus ATGam in renal transplants. Graft (supplement) 2(1):24–27Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Burk, ML and Natuszewski, RA. Muromonab-3 and antithymocyte globulin in renal transplantation. Ann Pharmacother 32(11):1370–1378, 1977Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vincenti, F, Kirkman, R Light, S et al. Interleukin-2 receptor blockade with diclizumab to prevent acute rejection in renal transplantation. Diclizumab triple therapy study group. N Engl J Med 338(3): 161–165, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kahan, BD, Rajagopalan, PR, Hall, ML et al. Basilixamab (simulect) is efficacious in reducing the incidence of acute rejection episodes in renal allograft patients; results at 12 months Transplantation 65(12):S189–S194, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Monaco, AP, Wood, ML, and Russel, PS. Studies on antilymphocyte serum in mice. III. Immunological tolerance and chimerism produced across the H-2 locus with adult thymectomy and antilymphocyte serum. Ann NY Acad Sci 129:190–193, 1966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lance, E and Medawar, PB. Quantitative studies on tissue transplantation immunity. IX. Induction of tolerance with antilymphocyte serum. Proc R Soc Lond Biol Sci 173(33):447–473, 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Monaco, AP and Wood, ML. Studies on heterologous antilymphocyte serum in mice. Vii. Optimal cellular antigens for induction of immunological tolerance with antilymphocyte serum. Transpl Proc 2(4):489–496, 1970Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gozzo, JJ, Wood, ML, and Monaco, AP. Use of allogeneic homozygous bone marrow cells for the induction of specific immunologic tolerance in mice treated with antilymphocyte serum. Surg. Forum 21:281–284, 1970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Simpson, MA and Gozzo, JJ. Studies on the mechanism of action of rabbit antithymocyte serum. I. Induction of suppressor cells. Transplantation 30(1):64–72, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maki, T, Simpson, MA, and Monaco, AP. Development of suppressor T cells by antilymphocyte serum treatment in mice. Transplantation 34(6): 376–381, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Maki, T, Gottschalk, R, and Wood, ML. Specific unresponsiveness to skin allografts in ALS treated, marrow injected mice; Participation of donor marrow derived suppressor cells. J Immunol 127(4): 1433–1438, 1981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Muraoka, S and Miller, RG. Cells in bone marrow and T cell colonies grown from bone marrow can suppress generation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes directed against their self antigen. J Exp Med 152(1):54–71, 1980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hale, DA, Gottschalk, R, Maki, T et al. Determination of an improved sirolimus (rapamycin) based regimen for induction of allograft tolerance in mice treated with antilymphocyte serum and donor specific bone marrow. Transplantation 65(4):473–478, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hale, DA, Gottschalk R, Umemura A, Maki T, Monaco AP. Establishment of stable multilineage hematopoietic chimerism and donor-specific tolerance without irradiation. Transplantation 69(7): 1242–1251, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Hartner, WC, DeFAzio, SR, Maki, T et al. Prolongation of renal allograft survival in antilymphocyte serum treated dogs by post-operative injection of density gradient fractionated donor bone marrow. Transplantation 42(6):593–597, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hartner, WC, Markees, TG, DeFazio, SR et al. The effect of antilymphocyte serum, fractionated donor bone marrow, and cyclosporine on renal allograft survival in mongrel dogs. Transplantation 52(5):784–789, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thomas, JM, Carver, FM, Cunningham, P et al. Kidney allograft tolerance in primates without chronic immunosuppression — the role of veto cells. Transplantation 51(1): 198–207, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thomas, JM, Verbanac, KM and Thomas FT. The veto mechanism in transplant tolerance. Transplant Rev 5:209–214, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Myburgh, JA, Smit, JA, Mieny, CJ et al. Hepatic allotransplantation in the baboon. 3. The effects of immunosuppression and administration of donor specific antigen after transplantation. Transplantation 12(3):202–210, 1971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Barber, WH, Mankinn, JA, Laskow, DA et al. Long term results of a controlled, prospective study with transfusion of donor specific bone marrow in 57 cadaveric renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 51(1):70–74, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shapiro, R, Rao, AS, Fontes, P et al. Combined kidney/bone marrow transplantation — evidence of augmentation of chimerism. Transplantation 59(2):306–309, 1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Garcia-Morales, R, Carreno, M. Mathew, J et al. The effects of chimeric cells following donor bone marrow infusion as detected by PCR-flow assays in kidney transplant recipients. J Clin Invest 99(5): 1118–1129, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Garcia-Morales, R, Esquenazi, V, Zucker, K et al. Assessment of the effects of cadaver bonemarrow on chimerism in kidney transplant recipients by the polymerase chain reaction-flow technique. Transplantation 62(8): 1149–1161, 1996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Garcia-Morales, R, Carreno, M, Mathew, J et al. Continuing observation on the regulatory effect of donor specific bone marrow cell infusions and chimerism in kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 65(7):956–965, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ricordi, C, Karatzas, T, Nery, J et al. Human islet allografts in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing liver transplantation. Transplantation 63(3):473–475, 1997PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tsarouvha, AK, Rocordi, C, Noto, TA et al. Donor peripheral blood stem cell infusion in recipients of living related liver allografts. Transplantation 64(2):362–364, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Monaco, AP. A new look at polyclonal antilymphocyte antibodies in clinical transplantation. Graft (supplement) 2(1):2–5, 1998Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Morrissey
  • Anthony P. Monaco

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations