Studies on the participation of different T cell subsets in rat liver allograft rejection

Comparison of liver with heart graft
  • R. Sumimoto
  • H. Kimura
  • A. Yamaguchi
  • N. Kamada
Conference paper


In this study, we investigated which subsets of rat T cells (CD8 + vs. CD4 +) are involved in the rejection of liver allografts by the in vivo administration of monoclonal antibody (OX-8 or OX-38, and W3/25 MAb) into thymec-tomized recipient Lewis (RTI1) rats prior to DA (RTFa) liver transplantation. We also compared the results of allograft survival of liver and heart transplants under the same experimental conditions. In order to deplete either CD8 + T cells or CD4 + T cells from recipient animals, 0.4 ml of OX-8 (ascitic form) or a 0.8 ml cocktail of MAb W3/25 and OX-38 (0.4 ml each) was injected into thymectomized recipient rats, respectively. Untreated Lewis rats consistently rejected donor DA liver grafts between 9 and 11 days (n = 7, 9.8 days ±1.1 days). In contrast, anti-CD8 MAb pretreatment extended the survival times of DA liver grafts for up to 40 days (n = 5, 26.8 days ± 8.4 days). Furthermore, survival of DA liver grafts was significantly prolonged in Lewis rats that had been pretreated with anti-CD4 MAb (n = 7,35.6 days ± 17.9 days). Two out of seven recipient animals survived for more than 60 days. For heart transplantation, untreated Lewis rats rejected DA heart grafts between 6 and 8 days after operation (n = 6, 6.5 days ± 1.2 days). Anti-CD4 MAb treatment prolonged heart graft survival for more than 60 days in all cases (n = 3, > 60 days). However, there was virtually no effect of anti-CD8 MAb treatment on heart graft survival (n = 4, 7.0 days ±0.9 days). These results suggested that when whole MHC disparity prevailed between donor and recipient, both subsets of T cells were required for the rejection of liver allografts and that class II reactive T cells predominantly mediated liver graft rejection. Furthermore, CD8 + T cells played a differential role in the rejection of rat liver and heart allograft.

Key words

Allograft rejection CD4 + /CD8 + T cell Rat liver graft 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Engleman EG, Benike CJ, Grumet FC, Evans RL (1981) Activation of human T lymphocyte subsets: helper and suppressor/cy-totoxic T cells recognize and respond to distinct histocompatibility antigens. J Immunol 127:2124PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gracie JA, Bolton EM, Porteous C, Bradley JA (1990) T cell requirements for the rejection of renal allografts bearing an isolated class IMHC disparity. J Exp Med 172:1547–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herbert J, Roser B (1988) Strategies of monoclonal antibody therapy that induce permanent tolerance of organ transplants. Transplantation 46:128S-134SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heron I (1971) A technique for accessory cervical heart transplantation in rabbits and rats. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 79: 366Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Howard JC (1972) The life-span and recirculation of marrow-derived small lymphocytes from the rat thoracic duct. J Exp Med 135:185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    llano AL, McConnel MV, Gurley KE, Spinelli A, Pearce NW, Hall B (1989) Cellular basis of allograft rejection in vivo: V. Examination of the mechanisms responsible for the differing efficacy of monoclonal antibody to CD4 + T cell subsets in low and high-responder rat strains. J Immunol 143:2828–2836Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kamada N (1985) The immunology of experimental liver transplantation in the rat. Immunology 55:369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kamada N, Calne RY (1983) A surgical experience with five hundred and thirty-five transplant in the rat. Surgery 93:64–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McConnel M, Hall BM (1989) Comparison of CD4 and CD8 cell reactivity in high and low responder combinations in the rat. Transplant Proc 21:3294–3295Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sprent J, Schaefer M, Lo D, Korngold R (1986) Properties of purified T cell subsets. II. In vitro responses to class I versus class IIH-2 differences. J Exp Med 163: 998–1011Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sprent J, Webb S (1987) Function and specificity of T cell subsets in the mouse. Adv Immunol 41:39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sumimoto R, Kamada N (1990) Specific suppression of allograft rejection by soluble class I antigen and complexes with monoclonal antibody. Transplantation 50:678–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sumimoto R, Shinomiya T (1991) Examination of serum class I antigen in liver-transplanted rats. Clin Exp Immunol 85:114–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Swain S (1983) T cell subsets and the recognition of MHC class. Immunol Rev 74:129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Sumimoto
    • 1
  • H. Kimura
    • 1
  • A. Yamaguchi
    • 1
  • N. Kamada
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental SurgeryNational Children’s Medical Research CenterSetagaya-ku, Tokyo, 154Japan

Personalised recommendations