Dataset Information

Donor NK and T Cells in the Periphery of Lung Transplant Recipients Contain High Frequencies of Killer Cell Immunoglobulin-Like Receptor-Positive Subsets.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

For end-stage lung diseases, double lung transplantation (DLTx) is the ultimate curative treatment option. However, acute and chronic rejection and chronic dysfunction are major limitations in thoracic transplantation medicine. Thus, a better understanding of the contribution of immune responses early after DLTx is urgently needed. Passenger cells, derived from donor lungs and migrating into the recipient periphery, are comprised primarily by NK and T cells. Here, we aimed at characterizing the expression of killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIR) on donor and recipient NK and T cells in recipient blood after DLTx. Furthermore, we investigated the functional status and capacity of donor vs. recipient NK cells.

Methods

Peripheral blood samples of 51 DLTx recipients were analyzed pre Tx and at T0, T24 and 3wk post Tx for the presence of HLA-mismatched donor NK and T cells, their KIR repertoire as well as activation status using flow cytometry.

Results

Within the first 3 weeks after DLTx, donor NK and T cells were detected in all patients with a peak at T0. An increase of the KIR2DL/S1-positive subset was found within the donor NK cell repertoire. Moreover, donor NK cells showed significantly higher frequencies of KIR2DL/S1-positive cells (p<0.01) 3wk post DLTx compared to recipient NK cells. This effect was also observed in donor KIR⁺ T cells 3wk after DLTx with higher proportions of KIR2DL/S1 (p<0.05) and KIR3DL/S1 (p<0.01) positive T cells. Higher activation levels of donor NK and T cells (p<0.001) were detected compared to recipient cells via CD25 expression as well as a higher degranulation capacity upon activation by K562 target cells.

Conclusion

Higher frequencies of donor NK and T cells expressing KIR compared to recipient NK and T cells argue for their origin in the lung as a part of a highly specialized immunocompetent compartment. Despite KIR expression, higher activation levels of donor NK and T cells in the periphery of recipients suggest their pre-activation during the ex situ phase. Taken together, donor NK and T cells are likely to have a regulatory effect in the balance between tolerance and rejection and, hence, graft survival after DLTx.

SUBMITTER: Hitz AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8710687 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLong-term kidney transplant survival at the population level is consistently favorable, but this survival varies widely at an individual level due to both recipient and donor factors. The distinct contribution of recipient and donor factors to individual post kidney transplant outcome remains unclear. Comparing outcomes in deceased donor (DD) recipients with potential but non-actualized living donors (DD1) to those recipients with actualized living donors (LD), and to DD recipients without potential living donors (DD0) may provide transplant candidates with more information about their own post-transplant prognosis.MethodsWe conducted an observational retrospective cohort study of kidney transplant candidates presenting to our centre for evaluation between 01/01/06 and 31/12/18, and who also received a transplant during that time. Patients were followed to 31/08/2019. Candidates were classified as DD0, DD1, or LD based on whether they had an identified living donor at the time of initial pre-transplant assessment, and if the donor actualized or not. Primary outcome was 5-year death-censored graft survival, adjusted for common pre- and post-transplant donor and recipient risk factors. Secondary outcomes analyzed included patient survival and graft function.ResultsThere were 453 kidney transplant recipients (LD = 136, DD1 = 83, DD0 = 234) who received a transplant during the study period. DD0 and DD1 did not differ in key donor organ characteristics. The 5-year death censored graft survival of DD1 was similar to LD (p = 0.19). DD0 graft survival was inferior to LD (p = 0.005), but also trended inferior to DD1 (p = 0.052). By multivariate Cox regression analysis, LD demonstrated similar 5-year graft survival to DD1 (HR for graft loss 0.8 [95% CI 0.25-2.6], p = 0.72) but LD graft survival was superior to DD0 (HR 0.34 [0.16-0.72], p = 0.005). The 5-year patient survival in DD1 was similar to LD (p = 0.26) but was superior to DD0 (p = 0.01).ConclusionsDD recipients with potential but non-actualized living donors exhibit similar mid-term graft and patient survival compared to LD recipients. Having an identified living donor at the time of pre-transplant assessment portends a favorable prognosis for the recipient.

Project description:Socioeconomically deprived individuals with renal disease are less likely to receive a live-donor kidney transplant than less-deprived individuals. This qualitative study aimed to identify reasons for the observed socioeconomic disparity in live-donor kidney transplantation.A qualitative study using face-to-face in-depth semistructured interviews.A UK tertiary renal referral hospital and transplant centre.Purposive sampling was used to select deceased-donor transplant recipients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation (SED) (19 participants), followed by a low SED comparison group (13 participants), aiming for maximum diversity in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, primary renal disease and previous renal replacement therapy.Participants were interviewed following their routine transplant clinic review. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software and analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory.Themes common and distinct to each socioeconomic group emerged. 6 themes appeared to distinguish between individuals from areas of high and low SED. 4 themes were distinct to participants from areas of high SED: (1) Passivity, (2) Disempowerment, (3) Lack of social support and (4) Short-term focus. 2 themes were distinct to the low SED group: (1) Financial concerns and (2) Location of donor.Several of the emerging themes from the high SED individuals relate to an individual's lack of confidence and skill in managing their health and healthcare; themes that are in keeping with low levels of patient activation. Inadequate empowerment of socioeconomically deprived individuals by healthcare practitioners was also described. Financial concerns did not emerge as a barrier from interviews with the high SED group. Interventions aiming to redress the observed socioeconomic inequity should be targeted at both patients and clinical teams to increase empowerment and ensure shared decision-making.