Effect of suturing technique on corneal xenograft survival

Cornea

Volumn 26, Issue 9, 2007, Pages 1111-1114

  Sedlakova, Klara ^a   Filipec, Martin ^b,c  

^a CHARLES UNIVERSITY   (Czech Republic)

^b Charles University in Prague and General University Hospital in Prague   (Czech Republic)

^c Eye Clinic Lexum   (Czech Republic)

Author keywords

Corneal xenotransplantation; Graft survival; Immunosuppression; Surgical technique

Indexed keywords

2 AMINO 5,6 DIHYDRO 6 METHYL 4 H 1,3 THIAZINE; CYCLOSPORIN A; NITRIC OXIDE SYNTHASE INHIBITOR; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; COMBINATION CHEMOTHERAPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA TRANSPLANTATION; DRUG EFFECT; GRAFT REJECTION; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; MONOTHERAPY; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; SURVIVAL RATE; SUTURING METHOD; TREATMENT OUTCOME; XENOGRAFT;

ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES, MONOCLONAL; ANTIGENS, THY-1; CORNEA; CORNEAL TRANSPLANTATION; CYCLOSPORINE; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; GRAFT SURVIVAL; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENTS; MICE; MICE, INBRED BALB C; NITRIC OXIDE SYNTHASE TYPE II; RATS; RATS, INBRED LEW; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; THIAZINES; TRANSPLANTATION, HETEROLOGOUS;

EID: 34748867121     PISSN: 02773740     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ICO.0b013e31813c15f0     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Hrdlicková-Cela E, Smetana K, Plzák J, et al. Cells of porcine epidermis and corneal epithelium are not recognized by human natural anti-alpha-galactoside IgG. Folia Biol (Praha). 2001;47:200-205.
2. Amano S, Shimomura N, Kaji Y, et al. Antigenicity of porcine cornea as xenograft. Curr Eye Res. 2003;26:313-318.
3. Yamagami S, Isobe M, Yamagami H, et al. Mechanism of concordant corneal xenograft rejection in mice: synergistic effects of anti-leukocyte function-associated antigen-1 monoclonal antibody and FK506. Transplantation. 1997;64:42-48.
4. Sedláková K, Muckersie E, Robertson M, et al. FTY720 in corneal concordant xenotransplantation. Transplantation. 2005;79:297-303.
5. Qian Y, Dana MR. Molecular mechanisms of immunity in corneal allotransplantation and xenotransplantation. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2001;2001:1-21.
6. Schuurman HJ, Cheng J, Lam T. Pathology of xenograft rejection: a commentary. Xenotransplantation. 2003;10:293-299.
7. Tanaka K, Yamada J, Streilein JW. Xenoreactive CD4+ T cells and acute rejection of orthotopic guinea pig corneas in mice. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000;41:1827-1832.
8. Kuffová L, Holán V, Lumsden L, et al. Cell subpopulations in failed human corneal grafts. Br J Ophthalmol. 1999;83:1364-1369.
9. Strestíková P, Plsková J, Filipec M, et al. FK 506 and aminoguanidine suppress iNOS induction in orthotopic corneal allografts and prolong graft survival in mice. Nitric Oxide. 2003;9:111-117.
10. Pindjáková J, Vítová A, Krulová M, et al. Corneal rat-to-mouse xenotransplantation and the effects of anti-CD4 or anti-CD8 treatment on cytokine and nitric oxide production. Transpl Int. 2005;18:854-862.
11. Nakane M, Klinghofer V, Kuk JE, et al. Novel potent and selective inhibitors of inducible nitric oxide synthase. Mol Pharmacol. 1995;47:831-834.
12. Lake P, Clark EA, Khorshidi M, et al. Production and characterization of cytotoxic Thy-1 antibody-secreting hybrid cell lines. Detection of T cell subsets. Eur J Immunol. 1979;9:875-886.
13. Cursiefen C, Maruyama K, Jackson DG, et al. Time course of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis after brief corneal inflammation. Cornea. 2006;25:443-447.
14. Krulová M, Zajícová A, Fric J, et al. Alloantigen-induced, T-cell-dependent production of nitric oxide by macrophages infiltrating skin allografts in mice. Transpl Int. 2002;15:108-116.