Microbiological safety of the first clinical pig islet xenotransplantation trial in New Zealand

Xenotransplantation

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 309-323

  Wynyard, Shaun ^a   Nathu, Divya ^a   Garkavenko, Olga ^a   Denner, Joachim ^b   Elliott, Robert ^a  

^a Living Cell Technologies   (New Zealand)

^b ROBERT KOCH INSTITUTE   (Germany)

Author keywords

diabetes; high resolution melting; pancreatic islets; porcine endogenous retrovirus; porcine viruses; xenoses; zoonoses

Indexed keywords

ALGINIC ACID; VIRUS ANTIBODY; VIRUS DNA;

ANIMAL CELL; ANIMAL TISSUE; ANTIBODY BLOOD LEVEL; ARTICLE; BLOOD SAMPLING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ENCAPSULATION; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HYPOGLYCEMIA; INFECTION RISK; INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; MULTIPLEX POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; NEW ZEALAND; NONHUMAN; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; ORGAN DONOR; PANCREAS ISLET TRANSPLANTATION; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PORCINE ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REAL TIME POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; RETROVIRUS; SAFETY; SWINE; VIRUS GENOME; XENOTRANSPLANTATION; ZOONOSIS; ADVERSE EFFECTS; ANIMAL; BLOOD; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DONOR; ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUS; GENETICS; IMMUNOLOGY; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MICROBIOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; PIG; PROCEDURES; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK FACTOR; TRANSMISSION; VIROLOGY; XENOGRAFT; ZOONOSES;

ANIMALS; ANTIBODIES, VIRAL; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 1; DNA, VIRAL; ENDOGENOUS RETROVIRUSES; HUMANS; ISLETS OF LANGERHANS TRANSPLANTATION; NEW ZEALAND; PATIENT SAFETY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SUS SCROFA; TISSUE DONORS; TRANSPLANTATION, HETEROLOGOUS; ZOONOSES;

EID: 84905681980     PISSN: 0908665X     EISSN: 13993089     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/xen.12102     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ekser B, Ezzelarab M, Hara H, et al. Clinical xenotransplantation-the next great medical revolution? Lancet 2011; 379: 672-683.
2. Schuurman HJ,. Xenotransplantation: from the lab to the clinic: Sunrise Symposium at the XXIII International Congress of the Transplantation Society, Vancouver, Canada, August 2010. Clin Transplant 2011; 25: E415-E421.
3. United Health Group. 2010. The United States of Diabetes: Challenges and Opportunities in the Decade Ahead. Available at: http://www.unitedhealthgroup. com/hrm/unh-workingpaper5. [Accessed on 31 January 2014].
4. Karvonen M,. Incidence and trends of childhood Type 1 diabetes worldwide 1990-1999. Diabet Med 2006; 23: 857-866.
5. Patterson CC, Dahlquist GG, Gyürüs E, et al. Incidence trends for childhood type 1 diabetes in Europe during 1989-2003 and predicted new cases 2005-20: a multicentre prospective registration study. Lancet 2009; 373: 2027-2033.
6. International Diabetes Federation. IDF Diabetes Atlas, 6th edn. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation, 2013. Available at: http://www.idf.org/diabetesatlas [Accessed 31 January 2014].
7. Beckwith J, Nyman JA, Flanagan B, Schrover R, Schuurman HJ,. A health-economic analysis of porcine islet xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 2010; 17: 233-242.
8. Hering BJ, Cooper DK, Cozzi E, et al. The International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes- executive summary. Xenotransplantation 2009; 16: 196-202.
9. FDA. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: source animal, product, preclinical, and clinical issues concerning the use of xenotransplantation products in humans. 2003; Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceCompliance-RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ Xenotransplantation/ucm074354.htm, 2003 [accessed on 22 April 2013].
10. Schuurman HJ,. The International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes-chapter 2: source pigs. Xenotransplantation 2009; 16: 215-222.
11. Fishman JA, Scobie L, Takeuchi Y,. Xenotransplantation-associated infectious risk: a WHO consultation. Xenotransplantation 2012; 19: 72-81.
12. Wilson CA,. Porcine endogenous retroviruses and xenotransplantation. Cell Mol Life Sci 2008; 65: 3399-3412.
13. Denner J, Tönjes R,. Infection barriers to successful xenotransplantation focusing on porcine endogenous retroviruses. Clin Microbiol Rev 2012; 25: 318-343.
14. Bartosch B, Stefanidis D, Myers R, et al. Evidence and consequence of porcine endogenous retrovirus recombination. J Virol 2004; 78: 13880-13890.
15. Denner J, Schuurman HJ, Patience C,. The International Xenotransplantation Association consensus statement on conditions for undertaking clinical trials of porcine islet products in type 1 diabetes-chapter 5: strategies to prevent transmission of porcine endogenous retroviruses. Xenotransplantation 2009; 16: 239-248.
16. Paradis K, Langford G, Long Z, et al. Search for cross-species transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus in patients treated with living pig tissue. The XEN 111 Study Group. Science 1999; 285: 1236-1241.
17. Wynyard S, Garkavenko O, Elliot R,. Multiplex high resolution melting assay for estimation of Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus (PERV) relative gene dosage in pigs and detection of PERV infection in xenograft recipients. J Virol Methods 2011; 175: 95-100.
18. Irgang M, Sauer IM, Karlas A, et al. Porcine endogenous retroviruses: no infection in patients treated with a bioreactor based on porcine liver cells. J Clin Virol 2003; 28: 141-154.
19. Patience C, Patton GS, Takeuchi Y, et al. No evidence of pig DNA or retroviral infection in patients with short term extracorporeal connection to pig kidneys. Lancet 1998; 352: 699-701.
20. Elliott RB, Escobar L, Garkavenko O, et al. No evidence of infection with porcine endogenous retrovirus in recipients of encapsulated porcine islet xenografts. Cell Transplant 2000; 9: 895-901.
21. Tacke SJ, Bodusch K, Berg A, et al. Sensitive and specific immunological detection methods for porcine endogenous retroviruses applicable to experimental and clinical xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 2001; 8: 125-135.
22. Ricordi C, Lacy PE, Finke EH, Olack BJ, Scharp DW,. Automated method for isolation of human pancreatic islets. Diabetes 1988; 37: 413-420.
23. Kim J, Chae C,. Multiplex nested PCR compared with in situ hybridisation for the differenctiation of porcine circoviruses and porcine parvovirus from pigs with postweaning multisytemic wasting syndrome. Can J Vet Res 2003; 67: 133-137.
24. Elschner M, Prudlo J, Hotzel H, Otto P, Sachse K,. Nested reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction for the detection of group A rotaviruses. J Vet Med B 2002; 49: 77-81.
25. Gouvea V, Allen JR, Glass RI, et al. Detection of group B and C rotaviruses by polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Microbiol 1991; 29: 519-523.
26. Leary PL, Erker JC, Chalmers ML, et al. Detection of mammalian reovirus RNA by using reverse transcription-PCR: sequence diversity within the λ3-encoding L1 gene. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 1368-1375.
27. Zell R, Krumbholz A, Henke A, et al. Detection of porcine enteroviruses by nRT-PCR: differentiation of CPE groups I-III with specific primer sets. J Virol Methods 2000; 88: 205-218.
28. Rho S, Moon HJ, Park SJ, et al. Detection and genetic analysis of porcine hemagglutinating encephalomyelitis virus in South Korea. Virus Genes 2011; 42: 90-96.
29. Erker JC, Desai SM, Mushahwar IK,. Rapid detection of Hepatitis E virus RNA by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction using universal oligonucleotide primers. J Virol Methods 1999; 81: 109-113.
30. Guarino H, Goyal SM, Murtaugh MP, Morrison RB, Kapur V,. Detection of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction using different regions of the viral genome. J Vet Diagn Invest 1999; 11: 27-33.
31. Burd EM,. Validation of laboratory-developed molecular assays for infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Rev 2010; 23: 550-576.
32. Fiebig U, Stephan O, Kurth R, et al. Neutralizing antibodies against conserved domains of p15E of porcine endogenous retroviruses: basis for a vaccine for xenotransplantation? Virology 2003; 307: 406-413.
33. Kaulitz D, Fiebig U, Eschricht M, et al. Generation of neutralising antibodies against porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs). Virology 2011; 411: 78-86.
34. Denner J, Specke V, Thiesen U, Karlas A, Kurth R,. Genetic alterations of the long terminal repeat of an ecotropic porcine endogenous retrovirus during passage in human cells. Virology 2003; 314: 125-133.
35. Tacke SJ, Kurth R, Denner J,. Porcine endogenous retroviruses inhibit human immune cell function: risk for xenotransplantation? Virology 2000; 268: 87-93.
36. Garkavenko O, Dieckhoff B, Wynyard S, et al. Absence of transmission of potentially xenotic viruses in a prospective pig to primate islet xenotransplantation study. J Med Virol 2008a; 80: 2046-2052.
37. Waechter A, Eschricht M, Denner J,. Neutralization of porcine endogenous retrovirus by antibodies against the membrane-proximal external region of the transmembrane envelope protein. J Gen Virol 2013; 94 (Pt 3): 643-651.
38. Garkavenko O, Wynyard S, Nathu D, et al. Porcine endogenous retrovirus transmission characteristics from a designated pathogen-free herd. Transplant Proc 2008b; 40: 590-593.
39. Garkavenko O, Wynyard S, Nathu D, et al. Porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) and its transmission characteristics: a study of the New Zealand designated pathogen-free herd. Cell Transplant 2008c; 17: 1381-1388.
40. Le Tissier P, Stoye JP, Takeuchi Y, et al. Two sets of human-tropic pig retrovirus. Nature 1997; 389: 681-682.
41. Wood JC, Quinn G, Suling KM, et al. Identification of exogenous forms of human-tropic porcine endogenous retrovirus in miniature Swine. J Virol 2004; 78: 2494-2501.
42. Takeuchi Y, Patience C, Magre S, et al. Host range and interference studies of three classes of pig endogenous retrovirus. J Virol 1998; 72: 9986-9991.
43. Martin SI, Wilkinson R, Fishman JA,. Genomic presence of recombinant porcine endogenous retrovirus in transmitting miniature swine. Virol J 2006; 3: 91.
44. Dieckhoff B, Kessler B, Jobst D, et al. Distribution and expression of porcine endogenous retroviruses in multi-transgenic pigs generated for xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 2009; 16: 64-73.
45. Semaan M, Rotem A, Barkai U, Bornstein S, Denner J,. Screening pigs for xenotransplantation: prevalence and expression of porcine endogenous retroviruses in Göttingen minipigs. Xenotransplantation 2013; 20: 135-137.
46. Elliott RB,. Towards xenotransplantation of pig islets in the clinic. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2011; 16: 195-200.
47. Garkavenko O, Obriadina A, Meng J, et al. Detection and characterisation of swine hepatitis E virus in New Zealand. J Med Virol 2001; 65: 525-529.
48. Garkavenko O, Muzina M, Muzina Z, et al. Monitoring for potentially xenozoonotic viruses in New Zealand pigs. J Med Virol 2004; 72: 338-344.
49. Garkavenko O, Elliott RB, Croxson MC,. Identification of pig circovirus type 2 in New Zealand pigs. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 506-509.
50. Hector RD, Meikle S, Grant L, et al. Pre-screening of miniature swine may reduce the risk of transmitting human tropic recombinant porcine endogenous retroviruses. Xenotransplantation 2007; 14: 222-226.
51. Irgang M, Laue C, Velten F, et al. No evidence for PERV release by islet cells from German landrace pigs. Ann Transplant 2008; 13: 59-66.
52. Abrahante JE, Martins K, Papas KK, et al. Microbiological safety of porcine islets: comparison with source pig. Xenotransplantation 2011; 18: 88-93.
53. Meng XJ,. Emerging and re-emerging swine viruses. Transbound Emerg Dis 2012; 59: 85-102.
54. Cooper DKC, Bottino R, Satyananda V, Wijkstrom M, Trucco M,. Toward clinical islet xenotransplantation-are revisions to the IXA guidelines warranted? Xenotransplantation 2013; 20: 68-74.
55. Garkavenko O, Croxson MC, Irgang M, et al. Monitoring for presence of potentially xenotic viruses in recipients of pig islet xenotransplantation. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 5353-5356.
56. Petersen P, Lembert N, Zschocke P, et al. Hydroxymethylated polysulphone for islet macroencapsulation allows rapid diffusion of insulin but retains PERV. Transplant Proc 2002; 34: 194-195.
57. Pakhomov O, Martignat L, Honiger J, et al. AN69 hollow fiber membrane will reduce but not abolish the risk of transmission of porcine endogenous retroviruses. Cell Transplant 2005; 14: 749-756.