PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Long-term maintenance of transplanted organs is one of the major factors that increases survival time of recipients. Although obtaining a major histocompatibility complex (MHC)-matched donor with the recipient is essential for successful organ transplantation, there have been limited reports on MHC matching between dogs. In this study, we analyzed the canine MHC matching rates using Maltese, one of the most popular purebred dogs, and mongrel dogs in Korea. Genomic DNA was extracted from blood leukocytes and DNA was amplified by polymerase chain reaction with primers specific to MHC microsatellite markers. The MHC matching degree was confirmed by the microsatellite markers using polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The MHC matching rates of each donor-recipient groups including Maltese-Maltese, mongrel-mongrel and Maltese-mongrel were 4.76%, 5.13% and 6.67%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the MHC matching degree between each group. These results demonstrate that MHC-matched donors could be selected from other breeds as much as from the same breed for transplantation. Knowledge of the MHC matching degree of purebred and mongrel dogs would offer valuable information not only for improving the success rate of organ transplantation surgery in canine patients but also for transplantation research using experimental canine models.
References
1. Gregory CR, Kyles AE, Bernsteen L, Mehl M. Results of clinical renal transplantation in 15 dogs using triple drug immunosuppressive therapy. Vet Surg. 2006; 35:105–112.
2. Hopper K, Mehl ML, Kass PH, Kyles A, Gregory CR. Outcome after renal transplantation in 26 dogs. Vet Surg. 2012; 41:316–327.
3. Phillips H, Aronson LR. Use of end-to-side arterial and venous anastomosis techniques for renal transplantation in two dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2012; 240:298–303.
4. Rezapour S, Yarmohammadi A, Tavakkoli M. One-year survival rate of renal transplant: factors influencing the outcome. Transplant Research and Risk Management. 2017; 9:49–56.
5. Park KM, Nam HS, Hussein KH, Woo HM. Surgical management of vesicoureteral reflux with recurrent urinary tract infection after renal transplantation in a dog. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016; 248:309–314.
6. Park KM, Nam HS, Woo HM. Successful management of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia after kidney transplantation in a dog. J Vet Med Sci. 2013; 75:1529–1533.
7. Niemeyer GP, Welch JA, Tillson M, Brawner W, Rynders P, Goodman S, Dufresne M, Dennis J, Lothrop CD Jr. Renal allograft tolerance in DLA-identical and haploidentical dogs after nonmyeloablative conditioning and transient immunosuppression with cyclosporine and mycophenolate mofetil. Transplant Proc. 2005; 37:4579–4586.
8. Tillson M, Niemeyer GP, Welch JA, Brawner W, Swaim SF, Rynders P, Lenz SD, Dean B, Lothrop CD Jr. Hematopoietic chimerism induces renal and skin allograft tolerance in DLA-identical dogs. Exp Hematol. 2006; 34:1759–1770.
9. Mathes DW, Noland M, Graves S, Schlenker R, Miwongtum T, Storb R. A preclinical canine model for composite tissue transplantation. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2010; 26:201–207.
10. Chong AS, Alegre ML, Miller ML, Fairchild RL. Lessons and limits of mouse models. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013; 3:a015495.
11. Sato M, Keshavjee S, Liu M. Translational research: animal models of obliterative bronchiolitis after lung transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2009; 9:1981–1987.
12. Hong SH, Eun SC. Experimental forelimb allotransplantation in canine model. BioMed Res Int. 2016; 2016:1495710.
13. Sergi C, Abdualmjid R, Abuetabh Y. Canine liver transplantation model and the intermediate filaments of the cytoskeleton of the hepatocytes. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2012; 2012:131324.
14. Drukker M, Katz G, Urbach A, Schuldiner M, Markel G, Itskovitz-Eldor J, Reubinoff B, Mandelboim O, Benvenisty N. Characterization of the expression of MHC proteins in human embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 99:9864–9869.
15. Neefjes J, Jongsma ML, Paul P, Bakke O. Towards a systems understanding of MHC class I and MHC class II antigen presentation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011; 11:823–836.
16. van Kasteren SI, Overkleeft H, Ovaa H, Neefjes J. Chemical biology of antigen presentation by MHC molecules. Curr Opin Immunol. 2014; 26:21–31.
17. Debenham SL, Hart EA, Ashurst JL, Howe KL, Quail MA, Ollier WE, Binns MM. Genomic sequence of the class II region of the canine MHC: comparison with the MHC of other mammalian species. Genomics. 2005; 85:48–59.
18. Wagner JL, Burnett RC, DeRose SA, Francisco LV, Storb R, Ostrander EA. Histocompatibility testing of dog families with highly polymorphic microsatellite markers. Transplantation. 1996; 62:876–877.
19. Bettens F, Passweg J, Schanz U, Chalandon Y, Heim D, Güngör T, Stussi G, Nicoloso G, Baldomero H, Gratwohl A, Tiercy JM. Impact of HLA-DPB1 haplotypes on outcome of 10/10 matched unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donor transplants depends on MHC-linked microsatellite polymorphisms. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012; 18:608–616.
20. Bick SL, Bick DP, Wells BE, Roesler MR, Strawn EY, Lau EC. Preimplantation HLA haplotyping using tri-, tetra-, and pentanucleotide short tandem repeats for HLA matching. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008; 25:323–331.
21. Schiller JJ, Hopp KA, Pietz BC, Bick DP, Lau EC, Ellis TM. A simplified method for screening siblings for HLA identity using short tandem repeat (STR) polymorphisms. Hum Immunol. 2013; 74:562–566.
22. Park KM, Kang HS, Hussein KH, Kim HM, Kwak HH, Woo HM. Identifying the degree of major histocompatibility complex matching in genetically unrelated dogs with the use of microsatellite markers. Transplant Proc. 2015; 47:780–783.
23. Shyti E, Idrizi A, Sulcebe G. Histocompatibility testing for organ transplantation purposes in Albania: a single center experience. Balkan Med J. 2014; 31:121–125.
24. Morath C, Zeier M, Döhler B, Opelz G, Süsal C. ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation. Front Immunol. 2017; 8:234.
25. Wagner JL, Burnett RC, Storb R. Organization of the canine major histocompatibility complex: current perspectives. J Hered. 1999; 90:35–38.
26. Johnston SA, Tobias KM. Veterinary Surgery: Small Animal. 2nd ed.Elsevier Health Sciences;St. Louis, MO: 2013.
27. Kuhr CS, Allen MD, Junghanss C, Zaucha JM, Marsh CL, Yunusov M, Zellme E, Little MT, Torok-Storb B, Storb R. Tolerance to vascularized kidney grafts in canine mixed hematopoietic chimeras. Transplantation. 2002; 73:1487–1492.
28. Allen JG, Weiss ES, Arnaoutakis GJ, Russell SD, Baumgartner WA, Conte JV, Shah AS. The impact of race on survival after heart transplantation: an analysis of more than 20,000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89:1956–1963.
29. Pillay P, Van Thiel DH, Gavaler JS, Starzl TE. Effect of race upon organ donation and recipient survival in liver transplantation. Dig Dis Sci. 1990; 35:1391–1396.
30. Becker LE, Süsal C, Morath C. Kidney transplantation across HLA and ABO antibody barriers. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013; 18:445–454.
31. Morath C, Becker LE, Leo A, Beimler J, Klein K, Seckinger J, Kihm LP, Schemmer P, Macher-Goeppinger S, Wahrmann M, Böhmig GA, Opelz G, Süsal C, Zeier M, Schwenger V. ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation enabled by non-antigen-specific immunoadsorption. Transplantation. 2012; 93:827–834.
32. Impellizeri JA, Howell K, McKeever KP, Crow SE. The role of rituximab in the treatment of canine lymphoma: an ex vivo evaluation. Vet J. 2006; 171:556–558.
33. Jubala CM, Wojcieszyn JW, Valli VE, Getzy DM, Fosmire SP, Coffey D, Bellgrau D, Modiano JF. CD20 expression in normal canine B cells and in canine non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Vet Pathol. 2005; 42:468–476.
34. Medina Valentin AA, Gavazza A, Lubas G. Prevalence of dog erythrocyte antigen 1 in 7,414 dogs in Italy. Vet Med Int. 2017; 2017:5914629.
35. Kuhr CS, Yunusov M, Sale G, Loretz C, Storb R. Long-term tolerance to kidney allografts in a preclinical canine model. Transplantation. 2007; 84:545–547.
36. Li S, Kawata H, Katsuyama Y, Ota M, Morishima Y, Mano S, Kulski JK, Naruse T, Inoko H. Association of polymorphic MHC microsatellites with GVHD, survival, and leukemia relapse in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplant donor/recipient pairs matched at five HLA loci. Tissue Antigens. 2004; 63:362–368.
37. Bergstrom TC, Garratt RJ, Sheehan-Connor D. One chance in a million: altruism and the bone marrow registry. Am Econ Rev. 2009; 99:1309–1334.
38. Gragert L, Eapen M, Williams E, Freeman J, Spellman S, Baitty R, Hartzman R, Rizzo JD, Horowitz M, Confer D, Maiers M. HLA match likelihoods for hematopoietic stem-cell grafts in the U.S. registry. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371:339–348.
39. Hurley CK, Baxter-Lowe LA, Begovich AB, Fernandez-Vina M, Noreen H, Schmeckpeper B, Awdeh Z, Chopek M, Salazar M, Williams TM, Yunis EJ, Kitajima D, Shipp K, Splett J, Winden T, Kollman C, Johnson D, Ng J, Hartzman RJ, Hegland J. The extent of HLA class II allele level disparity in unrelated bone marrow transplantation: analysis of 1259 National Marrow Donor Program donor-recipient pairs. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000; 25:385–393.
40. Oura T, Cosimi AB, Kawai T. Chimerism-based tolerance in organ transplantation: preclinical and clinical studies. Clin Exp Immunol. 2017; 189:190–196.
Table 1.
The sequence of primer of DLA microsatellite marker
| Primer | Sequence | |
|---|---|---|
| MHC class I | ||
| FH2200 | Forward | 5′-GGCATGATCGTGGAGTCCC-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-CCCACCCCAGTTGTCCTATT-3′ | |
| MHC class II | ||
| FH2202 | Forward | 5′-GTTGAGTGGTTGCCTTTAGC-3′ |
| Reverse | 5′-CAGGATCTTCATATGTCACC-3′ | |
Table 2.
The degree of MHC class I in donor-recipient pairs from Maltese and mongrel dogs
| Group* | No. of full match pairs (%) | No. of haplo-match pairs (%) | No. of nonmatch pairs (%) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maltese-Maltese | 9 (8.57) | 11 (10.48) | 85 (80.95) | 105 (100.00) |
| Mongrel-Mongrel | 0 (0) | 17 (21.79) | 61 (78.21) | 78 (100.00) |
| Maltese-Mongrel | 7 (3.59) | 32 (16.41) | 156 (80.00) | 195 (100.00) |
| Maltese-Mongrel | 7 (3.59) | 32 (16.41) | 156 (80.00) | 195 (100.00) |
Table 3.
The degree of MHC class II in donor-recipient pairs from Maltese and mongrel dogs
| Group* | No. of full match pairs (%) | No. of haplo-match pairs (%) | No. of nonmatch pairs (%) | Total (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maltese-Maltese | 1 (0.95) | 20 (19.05) | 84 (80.00) | 105 (100.00) |
| Mongrel-Mongrel | 0 (0) | 17 (21.79) | 61 (78.21) | 78 (100.00) |
| Maltese-Mongrel | 5 (2.56) | 49 (25.13) | 141 (72.31) | 195 (100.00) |
Table 4.
The degree of MHC matching in donor-recipient pairs from Maltese and mongrel dogs
| Group* | No. of suitable pair (%) | No. of non-suitable pair (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M†-M‡ | M-H | H-M | H-H | M-U | U-M | H-U | U-H | U-U | |
| Maltese-Maltese (n=105) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.90) | 0 (0) | 3 (2.86) | 8 (7.62) | 1 (0.95) | 7 (6.67) | 14 (13.33) | 70 (66.67) |
| 5 (4.76) | 100 (95.24) | ||||||||
| Mongrel-Mongrel (n=78) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (3.85) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 13 (16.67) | 13 (16.67) | 48 (61.54) |
| 4 (5.13) | 74 (94.87) | ||||||||
| Maltese-Mongrel (n=195) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.51) | 2 (1.03) | 10 (5.13) | 6 (3.08) | 3 (1.54) | 19 (9.74) | 37 (18.97) | 117 (60.87) |
| 13 (6.67) | 182 (93.33) | ||||||||
XML Download