Spontaneous restoration of transplantation tolerance after acute rejection

Miller, Michelle L.; Daniels, Melvin D.; Wang, Tongmin; Chen, Jianjun; Young, James; Xu, Jing; Wang, Ying; Yin, Dengping; Vu, Vinh; Husain, Aliya N.; Alegre, Maria-Luisa; Chong, Anita S.

doi:10.1038/ncomms8566

Download PDF

Article
Open access
Published: 07 July 2015

Spontaneous restoration of transplantation tolerance after acute rejection

Michelle L. Miller¹^na1,
Melvin D. Daniels^2,3^na1,
Tongmin Wang²^na1^nAff6,
Jianjun Chen²,
James Young²,
Jing Xu²,
Ying Wang¹,
Dengping Yin²,
Vinh Vu²,
Aliya N. Husain⁴,
Maria-Luisa Alegre¹^na1 &
…
Anita S. Chong²^na1

Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 7566 (2015) Cite this article

7023 Accesses
32 Citations
37 Altmetric
Metrics details

Subjects

Abstract

Transplantation is a cure for end-stage organ failure but, in the absence of pharmacological immunosuppression, allogeneic organs are acutely rejected. Such rejection invariably results in allosensitization and accelerated rejection of secondary donor-matched grafts. Transplantation tolerance can be induced in animals and a subset of humans, and enables long-term acceptance of allografts without maintenance immunosuppression. However, graft rejection can occur long after a state of transplantation tolerance has been acquired. When such an allograft is rejected, it has been assumed that the same rules of allosensitization apply as to non-tolerant hosts and that immunological tolerance is permanently lost. Using a mouse model of cardiac transplantation, we show that when Listeria monocytogenes infection precipitates acute rejection, thus abrogating transplantation tolerance, the donor-specific tolerant state re-emerges, allowing spontaneous acceptance of a donor-matched second transplant. These data demonstrate a setting in which the memory of allograft tolerance dominates over the memory of transplant rejection.

Activation and regulation of alloreactive T cell immunity in solid organ transplantation

Article 27 July 2022

Charlotte Duneton, Pamela D. Winterberg & Mandy L. Ford

Therapeutic induction of antigen-specific immune tolerance

Article 12 December 2023

Jessica E. Kenison, Nikolas A. Stevens & Francisco J. Quintana

Long-term tolerance of islet allografts in nonhuman primates induced by apoptotic donor leukocytes

Article Open access 02 August 2019

Amar Singh, Sabarinathan Ramachandran, … Bernhard J. Hering

Introduction

Solid organ transplantation is the therapy of last resort for end-stage organ failure, but, in the absence of immunosuppression, T-cell-dependent acute rejection of allografts invariably ensues. Rejection is accompanied by allosensitization and the accelerated rejection of a second donor-matched transplant, as first reported for humans and rabbits by Medawar and colleagues^1,2. To prevent rejection, current immunosuppressive therapies that target T cells non-specifically have to be taken lifelong, leaving patients more susceptible to infections and tumours, in addition to having off-target side-effects. Donor-specific transplantation tolerance, in which alloreactive T cells are specifically incapacitated while leaving the rest of the immune responses intact, has long been the goal for clinical transplantation. Robust peripheral tolerance to allografts can be achieved in mice by administration of anti-CD154 (anti-CD40L) monoclonal antibody and donor-specific transfusion (DST)³. Such treatment at the time of transplantation results in long-term acceptance of a first cardiac allograft and subsequent acceptance of a second donor-matched heart, while allowing normal rejection of a second genetically distinct heart⁴.

In humans, transplantation tolerance has been challenging to achieve, but in recent years several groups have been able to induce it prospectively both in human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched and HLA-mismatched donor–recipient combinations^5,6,7. In addition, a proportion of liver and renal transplant recipients treated with conventional immunosuppression and who subsequently discontinued treatment, achieved a state of operational tolerance in which the transplanted organ remained stably functional for years with minimal histological signs of graft pathology^8,9,10,11. Notably, some of these tolerated transplants eventually succumbed to rejection, which manifested as a slow deterioration in graft function¹². The underlying basis for allograft rejection after long periods of operational tolerance is not known, although in some instances bacterial infections have been described to precede graft loss^12,13. These observations of a potential link between infection and graft loss are reminiscent of our previous report showing, in mice, that infection with the intracellular Gram-positive bacillus Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) ≥60 days after stable heart allograft tolerance precipitated rejection in a fraction of infected hosts¹⁴. Lm-triggered rejection was T-cell dependent, correlated with increased intragraft donor-specific T-cell alloreactivity in the absence of detectable crossreactivity between bacterial and donor antigens¹⁵, and was dependent on the production of interleukin (IL)-6 and signalling through the type I interferon receptor (IFNR)¹⁴. Furthermore, acute rejection of tolerant allografts in uninfected recipients was recapitulated by the combined induction of IL-6 and interferon (IFN)-β in vivo¹⁴.

It is assumed that the loss of operational tolerance in patients or animals is permanent such that re-challenge with a donor-matched graft would result in accelerated rejection, paralleling the consequences of acute rejection in a naïve host. Using a fully allogeneic cardiac allograft mouse model, we here report that the loss of transplantation tolerance following Lm infection-triggered allograft rejection is unexpectedly transient, as a second donor-matched transplant is spontaneously accepted after the temporary period of alloreactivity triggered by the infection waned. We show that this restored state of tolerance that dominates over a memory of rejection is mediated by regulatory T cells (Tregs) and exhibits exquisite specificity, as these recipients are able to generate protective immunity against the infectious agent and remain capable of rejecting third-party cardiac allografts.

Results

Return of tolerance after infection-induced graft rejection

Naïve hosts who acutely reject an allograft after transplantation develop allosensitization that results in the accelerated rejection of second donor-matched allografts transplanted at distal locations^1,2,16. We tested whether tolerant hosts that reject an allograft following a bacterial infection become similarly allosensitized. To this end, we used an experimental model of cardiac transplantation, where fully mismatched BALB/c (H-2^d) grafts vascularized in the abdominal cavity were accepted long term by C57BL/6 (H-2^b) recipients following a transient treatment at the time of transplantation with anti-CD154 and DST. Intraperitoneal (i.p.) infection with Lm 60 days post transplantation overcame tolerance and induced a T-cell-dependent rejection in approximately half of the recipients (Supplementary Fig. 1a and ref. 14). This rejection was unlikely to be due to non-tolerant anti-Lm T cells that crossreacted with BALB/c antigens, as untransplanted C57BL/6 mice that had been pre-sensitized with Lm did not display enhanced responsiveness to BALB/c stimulators in vitro when compared with unsensitized controls (Supplementary Fig. 1b), or increased cytotoxicity to BALB/c targets in vivo¹⁵, or acquired resistance to costimulation blockade upon subsequent transplantation with BALB/c hearts in contrast to BALB/c-sensitized recipients¹⁵. We further confirmed that the rejection-triggering effect of Lm was not limited to the BALB/c to C57BL/6 strain combination, as a subset of C57BL/6 mice made tolerant to C3H/HEN (H-2^k) cardiac allografts also rejected their transplant acutely following Lm infection (Supplementary Fig. 1c).

Consistent with allosensitization, we detected an increase in the number of IFNγ-producing alloreactive T cells at the time of graft rejection in the spleens of tolerant mice following i.p. Lm infection. We similarly observed an increase in the number of IFNγ-producing alloreactive T cells in peripheral lymph nodes (Fig. 1a,b) distal to the secondary lymphoid organs where T cells are primed following cardiac transplantation¹⁷. The presence of alloreactive T cells in both the spleen and distal lymph nodes supports their systemic recirculation from the sites of T-cell priming during the process of Lm-mediated loss of tolerance.

**Figure 1: Absence of memory of transplant rejection following acute rejection of tolerated allografts.**

To assess whether this infection-triggered allograft rejection and increase in alloreactivity in formerly tolerant recipients would result in accelerated rejection of a second transplant, animals that had completely rejected their abdominal allografts following Lm infection were re-transplanted in the cervical area with either donor-matched (BALB/c) or third-party (C3H/HEN) cardiac allografts 14 days after Lm infection (Fig. 1c). Instead of undergoing rejection in an accelerated fashion, the second donor-matched hearts were spontaneously accepted long term in the absence of immunosuppressive therapy, whereas third-party C3H/HEN transplants were promptly rejected (Fig. 1d). Similar spontaneous acceptance of second BALB/c hearts was observed with grafts transplanted on day 42 rather than day 14 post infection of tolerant recipients to allow more time for potential memory responses to develop. Histology of second donor-matched cervical hearts at day 14 post transplantation confirmed an absence of acute cellular rejection, with similar low rejection scores in second hearts transplanted into previously infected or uninfected tolerant recipients and in contrast to high scores in the first hearts undergoing Lm-dependent acute rejection (Fig. 1e). Thus, unlike naïve animals that acutely reject second distal donor-matched allografts, tolerant animals that undergo infection-triggered acute rejection spontaneously accepted second distal donor-matched allografts.

Donor reactivity following Lm infection is transient

To investigate the mechanism underlying the spontaneous acceptance of a second donor-matched allograft, anti-donor responses were measured at the time of second transplantation. Whereas the frequency (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 2) of detected IFN-γ-producing splenic alloreactive T cells was increased at day 7 post-Lm infection, coincident with the rejection of the established first allograft, this frequency was significantly reduced at the time of transplantation of the second allograft (14 days after Lm infection and 7 days after rejection of the established grafts) and was comparable to tolerant non-infected recipients. This was different from non-tolerant mice that had acutely rejected their grafts, and where significantly increased frequencies of IFNγ-producing alloreactive cells remained detectable 7 days after rejection (Fig. 2b). Furthermore, when Lm infection was on the day of transplantation, a time at which it prevents the induction of tolerance by anti-CD154/DST and triggers rejection 7–8 days after transplantation¹⁵, elevated frequencies of IFNγ-producing alloreactive T cells were also observed 7 days after acute rejection (Fig. 2b), indicating that Lm infection per se does not trigger the rapid reduction in the frequency of IFNγ-producing alloreactive T cells.

**Figure 2: The detection of allosensitization after Lm-induced loss of tolerance is transient.**

The return of transplantation tolerance is Treg dependent

The transiency of the measurable alloresponse after Lm infection of tolerant mice could theoretically be due to impaired survival or function of the alloreactive T cells, and/or regulation by Foxp3⁺ T cells. Indeed, we had previously shown that tolerated allografts contained a high percentage of CD4⁺CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ regulatory T cells among CD4⁺ cells^14,18. We confirmed here that the high percentage of CD4⁺Foxp3⁺ cells among CD4⁺ events in the first accepted allografts was significantly reduced during Lm-dependent acute rejection of the first allografts. This reduction in percentage of Foxp3⁺ cells was due to an influx of effector T cells as the total number of Tregs remained unchanged with Lm infection (ref. 14 and Fig. 4c). Of interest, the percentage of Foxp3⁺ cells was re-established in the donor-matched second allografts transplanted 14 days after Lm infection (Fig. 3a), and was in fact similar to the percentage of CD4⁺Foxp3⁺ T cells in second donor-matched allografts transplanted into non-infected tolerant recipients. This Treg percentage was significantly higher than that detected in syngeneic grafts, consistent with the tolerance to allografts being actively maintained by Tregs. Finally, a greater percentage of Tregs from tolerated allografts expressed a PD-1^high and CTLA-4^high phenotype of activated Tregs¹⁹, compared with Tregs from the spleen of naïve or tolerant animals (Fig. 3b,c).

**Figure 4: Lm infection elicits a systemic alloresponse in tolerant mice.**

**Figure 3: The return of tolerance is dependent on Tregs.**

To determine whether functional alloreactive T cells persisted at the time of second transplantation and whether they were suppressed by regulatory cells after the infection subsided, previously tolerant animals that had rejected their abdominal graft following Lm infection were depleted of Tregs by treatment with the anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody PC61 1 day before the transplantation of a second cervical BALB/c heart. Anti-CD25 administration prevented the acceptance of the second cervical transplants in animals that had rejected their first abdominal allografts after Lm infection (Fig. 3d). Thus, these data confirm that alloreactive T cells capable of rejecting a transplant had been induced following Lm infection, and persisted systemically at the time of second transplantation, but their function was dominantly suppressed by CD25⁺ regulatory cells. In contrast, anti-CD25 administration did not trigger rejection of second allografts transplanted into tolerant uninfected recipients.

Local return of tolerance at the site of infection

Because Lm was injected i.p., it was likely that the bulk of the infection, inflammation and anti-Lm immune responses were occurring in the abdomen. This raised the possibility that Lm infection may have abrogated transplantation tolerance permanently in the peritoneal cavity where the first heart was located, whereas distal tolerance may have persisted to permit acceptance of the second hearts placed in the cervical area. I.p. Lm infection indeed resulted in high bacterial counts in the spleen and liver of untransplanted, syngeneic and allogeneic graft recipients, and in the syngeneic and allogeneic abdominal grafts, whereas significantly lower counts were detected in the native heart, outside of the peritoneal cavity (Fig. 4a). The infection was associated with a strong anti-Lm response in the graft and spleen of allograft recipients, as determined using Lm engineered to express the model antigen ovalbumin (OVA) and fluorescently-coupled K^b:OVA pentamers to identify Lm-reactive T cells (Fig. 4b), and intragraft Lm-specific T cells contributed to the overall increase in the total number of effector T-cell subsets in the grafts (Fig. 4c). Furthermore similar Lm colony-forming units (CFUs) and anti-Lm T cells were detected in syngeneic cardiac grafts from infected mice (Fig. 4a,b), but only the allogeneic but not the syngeneic grafts stopped beating after Lm infection¹⁴. These observations therefore confirm that a strong local inflammatory response to Lm was elicited within the abdominal graft, even though it was not sufficient to trigger graft loss in the absence of alloreactivity.

To test whether transplantation tolerance was permanently abrogated at the site of the Lm infection, animals in which a primary abdominal allograft had completely stopped following Lm infection were re-transplanted 14–21 days post first allograft rejection with a donor-matched cardiac allograft placed also in the abdominal cavity, immediately adjacent to the primary rejected heart (rather than in the cervical area as shown in Fig. 1d). Remarkably, these second abdominal allografts were also spontaneously accepted (Fig. 4d–g, and see video of non-beating rejected first heart and beating accepted second heart side-by-side in Supplementary Movie 1). These data indicate that tolerance returned even at the site of maximal infection, thus underscoring the resilience of robust transplantation tolerance that could be transiently abrogated during an intense inflammatory response, but returned to dominate over alloreactivity when the infection was cleared.

Development of memory to Lm in transplant-tolerant mice

The inability of tolerant mice to demonstrate a functional memory of the transplant rejection prompted us to test whether this defect extended to the development of protective immunity to Lm. Lm-infected tolerant animals were challenged with a dose of Lm that was lethal to tolerant recipients that had not been previously infected (Fig. 5a). Memory to Lm developed successfully as the Lm-infected tolerant animals were protected against a lethal challenge of Lm administered either 2 or 8 weeks after the first infection (Fig. 5b). Thus, Lm infection abrogated established transplantation tolerance without inducing a functional allograft-specific memory, whereas anti-Lm memory developed normally.

**Figure 5: Animals experiencing a return of transplantation tolerance can successfully develop protective immunity to a lethal challenge of Lm.**

Discussion

We here provide experimental evidence of a transplant outcome that does not follow the rules of allosensitization described for non-tolerant animals by Medawar and colleagues^1,2, and demonstrate in mice with established transplantation tolerance that a memory of regulation can dominate over a memory of infection-triggered rejection. We previously reported that the loss of transplantation tolerance following Lm infection depended on the production of the inflammatory cytokines IL-6 and IFNβ (ref. 14). We, and others, have shown that IL-6 augments effector T-cell responses, rendering them less susceptible to suppression by Tregs in vitro and preventing iTreg differentiation, whereas IFNβ promotes the acquisition by conventional T cells of IFNγ production and its consequent effector functions^14,20,21. Our current results suggest that the pro-inflammatory effects of the Lm response are transient even at the site of infection, where the concentration of pro-inflammatory cytokines is presumed to be the highest. Finally, the spontaneous acceptance of second donor-matched allografts post Lm was prevented by anti-CD25 treatment, confirming the systemic presence of alloreactive T cells capable of driving rejection after Lm infection of tolerant mice, and implicating functional suppression by regulatory cells for tolerance to dominate over the memory of rejection.

The susceptibility to rejection following infection in recipients with established tolerance has implications for the notion that tolerance can achieve the goal of ‘one transplant for life’ in humans²². Indeed, viral as well as other types of bacterial infections have been described in immunosuppressed as well as tolerant transplant patients preceding episodes of acute rejection or allograft loss, especially when infections are in the vicinity of the graft^12,23,24,25. Even though Lm infections have been reported in transplanted patients²⁶, thereby providing a clinical context for our experimental model, it is important to point out that we used this single infectious agent in two donor–recipient combinations such that the generalizability of infections breaking established transplantation tolerance is not yet clear.

We speculate that infections close to or within the grafts may be more likely than distal infections to achieve local levels of inflammatory cytokines that are capable of uncoupling graft-infiltrating alloreactive T cells from the immunosuppressive pathways that keep them in check. We had previously demonstrated that the ability of Lm to break established transplantation tolerance is the result of synergy between the inflammatory axes of type I IFN and IL-6 signalling¹⁴. While cytokine production is likely to be dampened in transplant patients maintained on pharmacological immunosuppression, it might become more relevant and have more potent immunological consequences when protocols to induce clinical tolerance or minimize immunosuppression become more widespread. It is therefore important to define the spectrum of microbes and pro-inflammatory signals that are capable of enhancing alloreactivity and triggering a loss of tolerance.

Our observation that only a subset of tolerant infected mice fully reject their hearts is also similar to the clinical observation that not all infected patients reject their allografts¹². The underlying basis for this variable susceptibility to rejection following infection remains to be fully investigated, but we hypothesize that stochastic differences in the strength of the immune response to infection and the robustness of tolerance in the recipients may be contributory factors.

The identification of a high percentage of Tregs in both primary tolerated and secondary ‘return of tolerance’ allografts, and their expression of an activated phenotype, as well as the dependence on Tregs for the return of tolerance following infection is reminiscent of previous reports of regulatory memory. Rosenblum et al.¹⁹ described memory Tregs in transgenic mice that expressed both OVA-specific DO11.10 T cells, and, upon doxycycline treatment, OVA in the skin. In those mice, T-cell-dependent dermatitis occurred following expression of OVA, and Tregs with an activated phenotype accumulated in the skin and limited secondary responses more potently than primary ones, suggesting that a response to a self-antigen can imprint regulatory memory in tissues. Similarly, Rowe et al.²⁷ reported regulatory memory in the context of immune responses to fetal antigens. In that study, antigen-specific Tregs persisted after parturition and rapidly expanded during secondary pregnancy to more strongly suppress fetal resorption. Our results not only extend those observations to a transplantation setting but also demonstrate that regulatory memory can be therapeutically induced, and is migratory to a second allograft. More importantly, our data also establish a new paradigm for transplantation tolerance that regulatory tolerance can be transiently overcome by acute infections to allow allospecific effector responses to emerge, but that the tolerance can be re-established when the inflammatory signals recede with the clearance of the infection.

Regulatory T-cell suppression of persisting alloreactive T cells has been shown to be critical for the maintenance of skin allograft tolerance induced with a combination of anti-CD4, anti-CD8 and anti-CD154 antibodies²⁸. In contrast, our observation that the maintenance of established tolerance to heart allografts in uninfected recipients is not dependent on CD25⁺ regulatory T cells is consistent with a previous report showing that anti-CD25 treatment prevented the induction of tolerance to cardiac allografts by anti-CD154, but did not abrogate tolerance after it had been established²⁹. Because anti-CD154/DST treatment has been shown to also drive partial deletion and anergy of alloreactive T cells^30,31, it is likely that multiple redundant mechanisms of tolerance cooperate to maintain cardiac allograft survival after anti-CD154/DST therapy in the uninfected recipient. In contrast, in post-infected tolerant recipients, depletion of CD25⁺ cells is sufficient to prevent the acceptance of secondary donor allografts. We reason that Lm may impair other pathways of tolerance induced by anti-CD154, namely, partial deletion and anergy of alloreactive T cells, but not the suppressive function of Tregs, or that Lm infection-mediated erosion of anergy or expansion of alloreactive T cells may be more durable than its effect on Tregs, thereby allowing Tregs to play a dominant role in the return of tolerance. Thus, depending on the mechanisms of maintenance of tolerance elicited by specific therapeutic regimens, the types of inflammatory pathways triggered by particular infections, and the duration of their impact, one could conceive that certain infections might have no significant impact on tolerance, whereas others might precipitate an irreversible loss of tolerance. The latter may be achieved by simultaneously permitting the expansion of effector T cells and permanently impairing regulatory T-cell maintenance or function. Indeed, chronic inflammation including inflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and TNF, has been shown to promote the instability of the Treg lineage and to impair the function of regulatory cells³².

While our studies point to a Treg-dependent return of tolerance, Schietinger et al.³³ have described a model in which cell-intrinsic T-cell anergy was lost and spontaneously restored. In the study by Schietinger et al.³³, CD8⁺ TCR transgenic T cells tolerant to a Friend murine leukaemia virus (FMuLV) GAG epitope expressed in hepatocytes transiently recovered effector function when these cells were adoptively transferred into lymphodeficient hosts lacking the GAG epitope, but then returned to an unresponsive state³³. Whether similar cell-intrinsic unresponsiveness of alloantigen-specific T cells can also contribute to the maintenance and restoration of transplantation tolerance post infection, in addition to regulatory memory as we have shown, will be of interest to pursue in future studies.

The concept that tolerance can be overridden transiently during inflammatory events, but then re-surfaces when the inflammation resolves, may have wide clinical implications. It may explain why certain transplant patients can be successfully weaned of immunosuppression, revealing a state of operational tolerance despite having experienced prior acute rejection events^12,34. Moreover, several autoimmune diseases are known to undergo phases of relapse and stages of remission. It is possible that disease relapse is triggered by pro-inflammatory events that overwhelm an already suboptimal self-tolerant state in individuals genetically predisposed to autoimmunity. With the quiescence of inflammation, regulation may dominate again to explain disease remission. Similarly, initial immune-dependent regression of tumours can be followed by tumour recurrence. Tumour elimination by antitumour T cells may be aided by bystander inflammation, while tumour recurrence may be facilitated by activated Tregs³⁵. In fact, Lm is currently being used in clinical trials to improve antitumour immunity³⁶, suggesting that similar mechanisms of tolerance in the context of cancer as in our transplant model may be overcome by Lm infection. Therefore, a better understanding of the spontaneous restoration of antigen-specific tolerance may have wide clinical applicability for therapeutic approaches to transplantation, autoimmunity and cancer.

Methods

Study design

To calculate the sample size for the comparison of means of two independent samples, utilizing the online sample size calculator from Rollin Brant (University of British Columbia), with at least n=3 per group, there is 80% power to detect 3.5-fold differences or greater even if the average s.d. is as large as the smaller group’s mean. With at least n=4 per group and α=0.05, there is 80% power to detect threefold differences or greater in population means. With these same parameters, to have 80% power to detect a 2.5-fold change, at least seven individuals per group were needed and to detect a twofold change, at least 16 individuals per group were needed.

If the s.d. is half the smaller group’s mean, then n=4 is sufficient at 80% power to see twofold changes or greater, and n=3 is sufficient at 80% power to see 2.25-fold changes or greater. When results were not Gaussian, non-parametric statistics were used in the final analysis with often twice the number of samples than would be required to see a difference if the data were Gaussian once multiple experiments are pooled. Multiple comparisons were corrected by Bonferroni (parametric) or Dunn’s (non-parametric) tests.

For graft survival analyses, using the PS programme (Power and Sample size version 3.1.2), with α=0.05, a follow-up time of 60 days and the control group rejecting with a mean survival time (MST)=7 days, an average of n=4 animals were needed per group to detect hazard ratio of 0.137 or lower. This shifts to n=5 for hazard ratios of 0.17 or below, and to n=6 for hazard ratios of 0.198 or below. These numbers remain similar if the shorter median survival time of two groups is 23 days, provided there is a longer follow-up time of 120 days. For animal survival analyses, the PS programme was also used. With α=0.05, a follow-up time of 20 days, and the primary lethal infection group succumbing to infection with a MST of 3 days, n=4 animals were needed per group to detect a hazard ratio of 0.164 or lower.

No outliers were excluded and each experiment was repeated at least twice. The number of replicate experiments and whether the results were pooled from multiple experiments is listed in each figure legend.

Mouse transplantation and Lm infection

Six- to eight-week-old female C57BL/6 (B6, H-2^b) mice as recipients and BALB/c (B/c, H-2^d) and C3H/HEN (C3H, H-2^k) mice as donors were purchased from Jackson or Harlan Laboratories. Mouse abdominal heterotopic cardiac transplantation was performed using a modified technique from Corry and colleagues¹⁵ in which the aorta and pulmonary artery of the graft end-to-side was anastomosed to the recipient’s aorta and vena cava, respectively, while cervical area heterotopic cardiac transplantation was performed with the aorta and pulmonary artery of the graft anastomosed end-to-end to the recipient’s common carotid artery and jugular vein, respectively. Transplantation of secondary hearts in the abdominal cavity was performed with vascular anastomoses similar to (aorta and pulmonary artery of the graft to the abdominal aorta and inferior vena cava of the host), but immediately adjacent (above or below) to, those of the primary allograft. The rejected primary allograft was left in place and recipients did not receive antibiotics. Tolerance was induced by administration of anti-CD154 (BioXCell; 0.3–0.5 mg per mouse, intravenous on day 0, i.p. on day 7 and day 14 post transplantation) and DST (10⁷ donor splenocytes on the day of transplantation) to recipient mice. Cardiac grafts were checked by palpation and the day of rejection was defined as the last day of detectable heartbeat. Lm engineered to express the model antigen OVA was grown overnight and then re-diluted 1:50 the next day and regrown for 1.5 h to obtain cultures in early log-phase growth before enumeration of CFU by measurement of the absorbance at OD₆₀₀ with a spectrophotometer¹⁵. Doses of 3–5 × 10⁶ CFU (i.p.) were chosen for infection experiments to obtain highest rejection rate with minimal lethality. In some experiments, Lm (10⁵ CFU) was administered on the day of transplantation to mice that did not receive immunosuppression (acute rejection group) as a control. Allograft rejection was determined by heartbeat cessation using manual palpation of the closed abdomen. In addition, abdominal hearts were visually inspected before killing mice to ensure that the grafts never regained a heartbeat following Lm-dependent rejection. For lethal Lm challenge, mice were infected with 1.2 × 10⁷ CFU (i.p.). All Lm-infected mice were kept in biosafety facilities. All animals were used in agreement with the University of Chicago Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, according to the National Institutes of Health guidelines for animal use.

Histopathology

Grafts were removed and placed in 10% formalin. Sections were stained with haematoxylin and eosin, and the slides were scanned via CRi Pannoramic Scan Whole Slide Scanner at × 40, and then patched together to form one single image of the tissue. Pannoramic Viewer (a free downloadable software from 3DHISTECH) was used to view these image files. Images were examined by two independent investigators in a blinded manner. Histological sections were scored based on the percentage of infiltration observed in the interstitial tissue and as follows: 0%=0, 1–25% =1, 25–50%=2, 50–75%=3 and 75–100%=4.

IFNγ ELISpot assays

T cells from spleen were purified by negative selection using cell isolation kits (Miltenyi Biotec Inc.), and cell purity was confirmed to be >93% by flow cytometry. T cells (2 × 10⁵ per well in triplicate) were co-cultured for 24 h with T-cell-depleted irradiated (3,000 rads) C57BL/6xBALB/c (F1) or BALB/c splenocytes, or with syngeneic (B6) splenocytes incubated with or without heat-killed Lm (5 × 10⁵ per well). An IFNγ ELISpot kit was used according to manufacturer’s instructions (BD Biosciences) and the numbers of spots per well were enumerated using the ImmunoSpot Analyzer (CTL Analyzers LLC).

Isolation of graft-infiltrating cells

Graft-infiltrating cells were isolated from cardiac grafts that were extensively rinsed with heparin/1 × Hank's balanced salt solution (HBSS) solution (Cellgro), cut into small pieces and digested with 400 U ml⁻¹ collagenase IV (Sigma), 0.01% DNase I (MP Biomedicals) and 10 mM HEPES (Cellgro) in HBSS. The cells were then washed, stained and analysed by flow cytometry.

Enumeration of Listeria colony-forming units

Spleens, livers, transplanted hearts and native hearts were isolated from each animal at 48 h post-Lm infection. Tissues were homogenized first with a surgical blade and then with a Tissue Tearor hand-held homogenizer (Biospec Products) in 0.05% Tween in water. Serial dilutions of the homogenates were plated on Brain Heart Infusion agar (BD Biosciences) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h before colonies were counted.

Flow cytometry analysis

Splenocytes and total graft-infiltrating cells were stained using monoclonal antibodies specific for mouse CD90.2 (53-2.1, cat. no. 0902), CD4 (GK1.5, cat. no. 0041), CD8 (53-6.7, cat. no. 0081), CD44 (IM7, cat. no. 0441), PD-1 (J43, cat. no. 9985), CTLA-4 (UC10-4B9, cat. no. 1522), IFNγ (XMG1.2, cat. no. 7311) and Foxp3 (FJK-16 s, cat. no. 5773) (eBioscience), and in some experiments, K^b:OVA pentamers (ProImmune) to identify Lm-OVA-specific T cells, and analysed by flow cytometry (LSRII, BD). Pentamer staining was performed using one test (10 μl) to stain 5 million cells in 100 μl. For intracellular cytokine analysis, whole-lymph node cells (cervical, axillary, brachial and inguinal) or splenocytes were stimulated for 24 h with T-cell-depleted BALB/c × C57BL/6 F1 or C57BL/6 splenocytes with or without heat-killed Lm, and all samples were incubated with GolgiPlug (BD Biosciences) for the last 6 h. Cells were resuspended at 10⁶ cells per 20 μl, and the following dilutions of 0.2 mg ml⁻¹ of antibodies to CD90.2 (1:400), CD8 (1:100), CD4 (1:100), PD-1 (1:100), CTLA-4 (1:00) and IFNγ (1:100) were used. CD44 and Foxp3 antibodies were diluted 1:100 from a 0.5 mg ml⁻¹ stock. Cells were fixed and permeabilized for intracellular staining using a Foxp3 buffer staining kit (eBioscience). Viability of the cells was determined by using Viability Dye (for fixed samples) or 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (for unfixed samples; Invitrogen). Data were analysed using FlowJo software (TreeStar).

In vivo depletion and blockade with monoclonal antibodies

CD25⁺ T cells were depleted with a single intravenous dose of anti-CD25 (PC61, 0.4 mg per mouse, BioXCell) on the day before second heart transplantation. Depletion was confirmed by loss of Foxp3⁺CD4⁺ cells as determined by flow cytometry of peripheral blood mononuclear cells 1 week post antibody administration.

Statistical methods

The PS programme was used to calculate survival analyses³⁷ and the online power calculator from Rollin Brant (University of British Columbia) was used for sample size calculations for comparison of two means. The two-tailed Student’s t-test or one- or two-way analysis of variance and post hoc Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons, or, where appropriate, non-parametric Mann–Whitney or Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn’s post hoc was performed to determine statistical differences between groups. Graft MST and P values were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier/log-rank test (Prism5; GraphPad Software Inc.).

Additional information

How to cite this article: Miller, M. L. et al. Spontaneous restoration of transplantation tolerance after acute rejection. Nat. Commun. 6:7566 doi: 10.1038/ncomms8566 (2015).

References

Gibson, T. & Medawar, P. B. The fate of skin homografts in man. J Anat. 77, 299–310.4 (1943).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Medawar, P. B. The behaviour and fate of skin autografts and skin homografts in rabbits: a report to the War Wounds Committee of the Medical Research Council. J. Anat. 78, 176–199 (1944).
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Niimi, M. et al. The role of the CD40 pathway in alloantigen-induced hyporesponsiveness in vivo. J. Immunol. 161, 5331–5337 (1998).
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Wang, L. et al. Deficiency of protein kinase C-theta facilitates tolerance induction. Transplantation 87, 507–516 (2009).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Leventhal, J. et al. Chimerism and tolerance without GVHD or engraftment syndrome in HLA-mismatched combined kidney and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Sci. Transl. Med. 4, 124ra128 (2012).
Article Google Scholar
Kawai, T. et al. HLA-mismatched renal transplantation without maintenance immunosuppression. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 353–361 (2008).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Scandling, J. D. et al. Tolerance and chimerism after renal and hematopoietic-cell transplantation. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 362–368 (2008).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Sagoo, P. et al. Development of a cross-platform biomarker signature to detect renal transplant tolerance in humans. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 1848–1861 (2010).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Newell, K. A. et al. Identification of a B cell signature associated with renal transplant tolerance in humans. J. Clin. Invest. 120, 1836–1847 (2010).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Martinez-Llordella, M. et al. Multiparameter immune profiling of operational tolerance in liver transplantation. Am. J. Transplant. 7, 309–319 (2007).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Feng, S. et al. Complete immunosuppression withdrawal and subsequent allograft function among pediatric recipients of parental living donor liver transplants. JAMA 307, 283–293 (2012).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Brouard, S. et al. The natural history of clinical operational tolerance after kidney transplantation through twenty-seven cases. Am. J. Transplant. 12, 3296–3307 (2012).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Ahmed, E. B., Daniels, M., Alegre, M. L. & Chong, A. S. Bacterial infections, alloimmunity, and transplantation tolerance. Transplant. Rev. 25, 27–35 (2011).
Article Google Scholar
Wang, T. et al. Infection with the intracellular bacterium, Listeria monocytogenes, overrides established tolerance in a mouse cardiac allograft model. Am. J. Transplant. 10, 1524–1533 (2010).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Wang, T. et al. Prevention of allograft tolerance by bacterial infection with Listeria monocytogenes. J. Immunol. 180, 5991–5999 (2008).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Medawar, P. B. A second study of the behaviour and fate of skin homografts in rabbits: a Report to the War Wounds Committee of the Medical Research Council. J. Anat. 79, 157–176.4 (1945).
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Reed, A. J. et al. Alloreactive CD4 T cell activation in vivo: an autonomous function of the indirect pathway of alloantigen presentation. J. Immunol. 171, 6502–6509 (2003).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Chen, L. et al. TLR signals promote IL-6/IL-17-dependent transplant rejection. J. Immunol. 182, 6217–6225 (2009).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Rosenblum, M. D. et al. Response to self antigen imprints regulatory memory in tissues. Nature 480, 538–542 (2011).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Pasare, C. & Medzhitov, R. Toll pathway-dependent blockade of CD4+CD25+ T cell-mediated suppression by dendritic cells. Science 299, 1033–1036 (2003).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Bettelli, E. et al. Reciprocal developmental pathways for the generation of pathogenic effector TH17 and regulatory T cells. Nature 441, 235–238 (2006).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Kawai, T. et al. Tolerance: one transplant for life. Transplantation 98, 117–121 (2014).
Article Google Scholar
Ahmed, E. B., Alegre, M. L. & Chong, A. S. Role of bacterial infections in allograft rejection. Expert Rev. Clin. Immunol. 4, 281–293 (2008).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Leventhal, J. et al. Tolerance induction in HLA disparate living donor kidney transplantation by donor stem cell infusion: durable chimerism predicts outcome. Transplantation 95, 169–176 (2013).
Article Google Scholar
Kawai, T. et al. Long-term results in recipients of combined HLA-mismatched kidney and bone marrow transplantation without maintenance immunosuppression. Am. J. Transplant. 14, 1599–1611 (2014).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. Infection in solid-organ transplant recipients. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 2601–2614 (2007).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Rowe, J. H., Ertelt, J. M., Xin, L. & Way, S. S. Pregnancy imprints regulatory memory that sustains anergy to fetal antigen. Nature 490, 102–106 (2012).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Kendal, A. R. et al. Sustained suppression by Foxp3+ regulatory T cells is vital for infectious transplantation tolerance. J. Exp. Med. 208, 2043–2053 (2011).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Jiang, X. et al. Cardiac allograft acceptance induced by blockade of CD40-CD40L costimulation is dependent on CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells. Surgery 149, 336–346 (2011).
Article Google Scholar
Quezada, S. A. et al. Analysis of the underlying cellular mechanisms of anti-CD154-induced graft tolerance: the interplay of clonal anergy and immune regulation. J. Immunol. 175, 771–779 (2005).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Iwakoshi, N. N. et al. Skin allograft maintenance in a new synchimeric model system of tolerance. J. Immunol. 167, 6623–6630 (2001).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Barbi, J., Pardoll, D. & Pan, F. Treg functional stability and its responsiveness to the microenvironment. Immunol. Rev. 259, 115–139 (2014).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Schietinger, A., Delrow, J. J., Basom, R. S., Blattman, J. N. & Greenberg, P. D. Rescued tolerant CD8 T cells are preprogrammed to reestablish the tolerant state. Science 335, 723–727 (2012).
Article ADS CAS Google Scholar
Benitez, C. et al. Prospective multi-center clinical trial of immunosuppressive drug withdrawal in stable adult liver transplant recipients. Hepatology 58, 1824–1835 (2013).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Goding, S. R. et al. Restoring immune function of tumor-specific CD4+ T cells during recurrence of melanoma. J. Immunol. 190, 4899–4909 (2013).
Article CAS Google Scholar
Wood, L. M. & Paterson, Y. Attenuated Listeria monocytogenes: a powerful and versatile vector for the future of tumor immunotherapy. Front. Cell Infect. Microbiol. 4, 51 (2014).
Article Google Scholar
Dupont, W. D. & Plummer, W. D. Jr. Power and sample size calculations. A review and computer program. Control Clin. Trials 11, 116–128 (1990).
Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by grants, NIAID P01AI-97113 to A.S.C. and M.-L.A., R01 AI071080 to M.-L.A., and ROTRF 979162997 and NIAID R01 AI072630 to A.S.C. T.W. received an American Heart Association post-doctoral fellowship award. M.L.M. was funded by the Cardiovascular Pathophysiology and Biochemistry Training Grant (T32 HL07237), an HHMI Med-into-Grad Program training grant (56006772) and two AHA pre-doctoral fellowships (13PRE14550022 and 15PRE22180007). M.D.D. was funded by an AARA supplementary award and a Respiratory Biology Training Grant (T32 HL07605). We thank J.W. Williams, T. Gajewski and P. Srivastava for their comments on both the project and the manuscript.

Author information

Tongmin Wang
Present address: Present address: Department of General Surgery, Division II, The First People’s Hospital of Yunnan Province, Kunming, Yunnan 650031, China.,
Michelle L. Miller, Melvin D. Daniels, Tongmin Wang, Maria-Luisa Alegre and Anita S. Chong: These authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Medicine, Section of Rheumatology, The University of Chicago, 924 E. 57th Street, JFK-R302, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA
Michelle L. Miller, Ying Wang & Maria-Luisa Alegre
Department of Surgery, Section of Transplantation, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA
Melvin D. Daniels, Tongmin Wang, Jianjun Chen, James Young, Jing Xu, Dengping Yin, Vinh Vu & Anita S. Chong
Department of Biological Sciences, Chicago State University, 9501 S. King Drive, Chicago, 60628, Illinois, USA
Melvin D. Daniels
Department of Pathology, University of Chicago, The University of Chicago, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, Chicago, 60637, Illinois, USA
Aliya N. Husain

Authors

Michelle L. Miller
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Melvin D. Daniels
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Tongmin Wang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jianjun Chen
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
James Young
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Jing Xu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Ying Wang
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Dengping Yin
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Vinh Vu
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Aliya N. Husain
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Maria-Luisa Alegre
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Anita S. Chong
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.D.D., M.L.M. and T.W. helped design the study, performed the experiments shown in the manuscript and drafted the paper. J.C. and J.Y. assisted M.D.D. in the analyses of graft-reactive cells. J.X., Y.W. and D.Y. transplanted the animals. V.V. and A.N.H. performed histological studies. M.-L.A. and A.S.C. conceived and designed the study, helped interpret the results and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Maria-Luisa Alegre or Anita S. Chong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Figures

Supplementary Figures 1-2 (PDF 270 kb)

Supplementary Movie 1

Spontaneous acceptance of a second donor-matched abdominal allograft next to the rejected first allograft by infected tolerant recipients. A first BALB/c heart was transplanted in the peritoneal cavity of a B6 recipient treated with anti-CD154 + DST resulting in transplantation tolerance. Infection with Lm i.p. on day 60 post-transplantation resulted in acute rejection of the first graft 1 week later. A second B/c heart was transplanted immediately below the first rejected allograft 3 weeks after Lm infection, in the absence of immunosuppression. The video was taken at sacrifice, 60 days after second transplantation, and shows the first non-beating white fibrotic allograft (white arrow) and the fully vascularized beating second donor-matched allograft (red arrow). (MOV 14740 kb)

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, M., Daniels, M., Wang, T. et al. Spontaneous restoration of transplantation tolerance after acute rejection. Nat Commun 6, 7566 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8566

Download citation

Received: 04 December 2014
Accepted: 20 May 2015
Published: 07 July 2015
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8566

This article is cited by

Delivery of Rapamycin Using In Situ Forming Implants Promotes Immunoregulation and Vascularized Composite Allograft Survival
- Damian Sutter
- Dzhuliya V. Dzhonova
- Jonas T. Schnider
Scientific Reports (2019)
Fifty Shades of Transplantation Tolerance: Beyond a Binary Tolerant/Non-Tolerant Paradigm
- Michelle L. Miller
- Anita S. Chong
- Maria-Luisa Alegre
Current Transplantation Reports (2017)
Harnessing Apoptotic Cells for Transplantation Tolerance: Current Status and Future Perspectives
- Anil Dangi
- Xunrong Luo
Current Transplantation Reports (2017)

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.