• Edward K. Geissler
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 146)

Transplantation began as a clinical discipline with basic science seeking to explain, improve, and prevent consequences of the clinical practice. The primary consequence is the well-known outcome of immunologically mediated organ transplant rejection. Indeed, basic science has been evolving, along with clinical practice, to find strategies aimed at downregulating the immune system to a level that will prevent allograft rejection. This is commonly referred to in the transplant world as “immunosuppression.”


Transplant Recipient Acute Rejection mTOR Inhibitor Allograft Rejection Mycophenolate Mofetil 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Billingham RE, Brent L, Medawar PB. Actively acquired tolerance of foreign cells. Nature 1953; 172:603–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Medawar PB. The behavior and fate of skin autografts and skin homografts in rabbits. J Anat 1944; 78:176.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borel JF, Feurer C, Gubler HU, Stahelin H. Biological effects of cyclosporin A: a new antilymphocytic agent. Agents Actions 1976; 6:468–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calne RY, White DJ, Thiru S et al. Cyclosporin A in patients receiving renal allografts from cadaver donors. Lancet 1978; 2:1323–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hutchinson IV. The mode of action of Prograf (tacrolimus) and its significance for long-term graft survival. New Horiz Kidney Transplant 1997; 1:22–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hojo M, Morimoto T, Maluccio M et al. Cyclosporine induces cancer progression by a cell-autonomous mechanism. Nature 1999; 397:530–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luan FL, Hojo M, Maluccio M, Yamaji K, Suthanthiran M. Rapamycin blocks tumor progression: unlinking immunosuppression from antitumor efficacy. Transplantation 2002; 73:1565–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guba M, von Breitenbuch P, Steinbauer M et al. Rapamycin inhibits primary and metastatic tumor growth by antiangiogenesis: involvement of vascular endothelial growth factor. Nat Med 2002; 8:128–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maluccio M, Sharma V, Lagman M et al. Tacrolimus enhances transforming growth factor-beta1 expression and promotes tumor progression. Transplantation 2003; 76:597–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dantal J, Hourmant M, Cantarovich D et al. Effect of long-term immunosuppression in kidney-graft recipients on cancer incidence: randomised comparison of two cyclosporin regimens. Lancet 1998; 351:623–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kasiske BL, Heim-Duthoy K, Ma JZ. Elective cyclosporine withdrawal after renal transplantation. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1993; 269:395–400.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gosio B. Sperimentate su culture pure di bacilli del carbonchio demonstrarano notevole potere antisettica. C R Acad Med Torino 1893; 61:484.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franklin TJ, Cook JM. The inhibition of nucleic acid synthesis by mycophenolic acid. Biochem J 1969; 113:515–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allison AC, Almquist SJ, Muller CD, Eugui EM. In vitro immunosuppressive effects of mycophenolic acid and an ester pro-drug, RS-61443. Transplant Proc 1991; 23:10–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sollinger HW. Mycophenolate mofetil for the prevention of acute rejection in primary cadaveric renal allograft recipients. U.S. Renal Transplant Mycophenolate Mofetil Study Group. Transplantation 1995; 60:225–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koehl G, Wagner F, Stoeltzing O et al. MMF inhibits tumor growth and angiogenesis in vitro, but has variable anti-tumor effects in vivo possibly related to bioavailability. Transplantation 2007; 83:607–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmeding M, Neumann UP, Neuhaus R, Neuhaus P. Mycophenolate mofetil in liver transplantation: is monotherapy safe? Clin Transplant 2006; 20(Suppl 17): 75–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suzuki S, Kimura T, Ando K, Sawada M, Tamura G. Antitumor activity of mycophenolic acid. JAntibiot (Tokyo) 1969; 22:297–302.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tressler RJ, Garvin LJ, Slate DL. Anti-tumor activity of mycophenolate mofetil against human and mouse tumors in vivo. Int J Cancer 1994; 57:568–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takebe N, Cheng X, Fandy TE et al. IMP dehydrogenase inhibitor mycophenolate mofetil induces caspase-dependent apoptosis and cell cycle inhibition in multiple myeloma cells. Mol Cancer Ther 2006; 5:457–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Robson R, Cecka JM, Opelz G, Budde M, Sacks S. Prospective registry-based observational cohort study of the long-term risk of malignancies in renal transplant patients treated with mycophenolate mofetil. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:2954–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sehgal SN. Sirolimus: its discovery, biological properties, and mechanism of action. Transplant Proc 2003; 35:7S–14S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fingar DC, Blenis J. Target of rapamycin (TOR): an integrator of nutrient and growth factor signals and coordinator of cell growth and cell cycle progression. Oncogene 2004; 23:3151–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sehgal SN. Rapamune (RAPA, rapamycin, sirolimus): mechanism of action immunosuppressive effect results from blockade of signal transduction and inhibition of cell cycle progression. Clin Biochem 1998; 31:335–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fairbanks KD, Eustace JA, Fine D, Thuluvath PJ. Renal function improves in liver transplant recipients when switched from a calcineurin inhibitor to sirolimus. Liver Transplant 2003; 9:1079–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mota A, Arias M, Taskinen EI et al. Sirolimus-based therapy following early cyclosporine withdrawal provides significantly improved renal histology and function at 3 years. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:953–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MacDonald AS. A worldwide, phase III, randomized, controlled, safety and efficacy study of a sirolimus/cyclosporine regimen for prevention of acute rejection in recipients of primary mismatched renal allografts. Transplantation 2001; 71:271–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vitko S, Margreiter R, Weimar W. International, double-blind, parallel group study of the safety and efficacy of certican (rad) versus mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) in combination with neoral and steroids. Am J Transplant 2001; 1(Suppl 1): 474.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martin KA, Rzucidlo EM, Merenick BL et al. The mTOR/p70 S6K1 pathway regulates vascular smooth muscle cell differentiation. Am J Cell Physiol 2004; 286:C 507–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:1315–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koehl G, Gaumann A, Zuelke C et al. Development of de novo cancer in p53 knock-out mice is dependent on the type of long-term immunosuppression used. Transplantation 2006; 82:741–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koehl G, Andrassy J, Guba M et al. Rapamycin protects allografts from rejection while simultaneously attacking tumors in immunosuppressed mice. Transplantation 2004; 77:1319–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Beuvink I, Boulay A, Fumagalli S et al. The mTOR inhibitor RAD001 sensitizes tumor cells to DNA-damaged induced apoptosis through inhibition of p21 translation. Cell 2005; 120:747–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Koehl G, Schlitt HJ, Geissler EK. Rapamycin and tumor growth: mechanisms behind its anticancer activity. Transplant Rev 2005; 19:20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jensen MK, Soborg M. Chromosome aberrations in human cells following treatment with imuran. Preliminary report. Acta Med Scand 1966; 179:249–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bottomley WW, Ford G, Cunliffe WJ, Cotterill JA. Aggressive squamous cell carcinomas developing in patients receiving long-term azathioprine. Br J Haematol 1995; 133:460–2.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lewis P, Hazleman BL, Hanka R, Roberts S. Cause of death in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with particular reference to azathioprine. Ann Rheum Dis 1980; 39:457–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Walker SE, Anver MR, Schechter SL, Bole GG. Prolonged lifespan and high incidence of neoplasms in NZB/NZW mice treated with hydrocortisone sodium succinate. Kidney Int 1978; 14:151–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brinkmann V, Pinschewer DD, Feng L, Chen S. FTY720: altered lymphocyte traffic results in allograft protection. Transplantation 2001; 72:764–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mandala S, Hajdu R, Bergstrom J et al. Alteration of lymphocyte trafficking by sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor agonists. Science 2002; 296:346–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Azuma H, Takahara S, Ichimaru N et al. Marked prevention of tumor growth and metastasis by a novel immunosuppressive agent, FTY720, in mouse breast cancer models. Cancer Res 2002; 62:1410–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matsuoka Y, Nagahara Y, Ikekita M, Shinomiya T. A novel immunosuppressive agent FTY720 induced Akt dephosphorylation in leukemia cells. Br J Pharmacol 2003; 138:1303–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Birkeland SA, Hamilton-Dutoit S. Is posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD) caused by any specific immunosuppressive drug or by the transplantation per se? Transplantation 2003; 76:984–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sandrini S. Use of IL-2 receptor antagonists to reduce delayed graft function following renal transplantation: a review. Clin Transplant 2005; 19:705–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Waldmann H, Polliak A, Hale G et al. Elimination of graft-versus-host disease by in-vitro depletion of alloreactive lymphocytes with a monoclonal rat anti-human lymphocyte antibody (CAMPATH-1). Lancet 1984; 2:483–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vincenti F, Larsen C, Durrbach A et al. Costimulation blockade with belatacept in renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:770–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Owen RD. Immunogenetic consequences of vaxcular anastomoses between bovine twins. Science 1945; 102:400–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cai J, Lee J, Jankowska-Gan E et al. Minor H antigen HA-1-specific regulator and effector CD8+ T cells, and HA-1 microchimerism, in allograft tolerance. J Exp Med 2004; 199:1017–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cosimi AB, Sachs DH. Mixed chimerism and transplantation tolerance. Transplantation 2006; 77:943–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Elster EA, Xu H, Tadaki DK et al. Treatment with the humanized CD154-specific monoclonal antibody, hu5C8, prevents acute rejection of primary skin allografts in nonhuman primates. Transplantation 2001; 72:1473–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kirk AD, Harlan DM. Reply: Increased incidence of thromboembolic complications following anti-CD40L monoclonal antibody treatment in cynomolgus monkeys. Letter to the Editor. Nat Med 2000; 6:114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Calne R, Friend P, Moffatt S et al. Prope tolerance, perioperative campath 1H, and low-dose cyclosporin monotherapy in renal allograft recipients. Lancet 1998; 351:1701–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Knechtle SJ, Pirsch JD, Fechner JH Jr et al. Campath-1H induction plus rapamycin monotherapy for renal transplantation: results of a pilot study. Am J Transplant 2003; 3:722–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Leventhal JR, Gallon L, Kaufman DB. Alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) facilitates prednisone-free immunosuppression (IP) in kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2003; 3:310.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shapiro R, Jordan ML, Basu A et al. Kidney transplantation under a tolerogenic regimen of recipient pretreatment and low-dose postoperative immunosuppression with subsequent weaning. Ann Surg 2003; 238:520–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Newell KA, Larsen CP. Tolerance assays: measuring the unknown. Transplantation 2006; 81:1503–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    VanBuskirk AM, Burlingham WJ, Jankowska-Gan E et al. Human allograft acceptance is associated with immune regulation. J Clin Invest 2000; 106:145–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Akl A, Luo S, Wood KJ. Induction of transplantation tolerance-the potential of regulatory T cells. Transplant Immunol 2005; 14:225–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    McCurry KR, Colvin BL, Zahorchak AF, Thomson AW. Regulatory dendritic cell therapy in organ transplantation. Transplant Int 2006; 19:525–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Salgaller ML. A manifesto on the current state of dendritic cells in adoptive immunotherapy. Transfusion (Paris) 2003; 43:422–4.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brem-Exner BG, Sattler C, Hutchinson JA et al. Macrophages driven to a novel state of activation have anti-inflammatory properties in mice. J Immunol 2008; 180:335–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hutchinson JA, Riquelme P, Brem-Exner BG et al. Transplant acceptance-inducing cells as an immune-conditioning therapy in renal transplanation. Transplant Int 2008; 21:728–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward K. Geissler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity Hospital Regensburg, University of RegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations