Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36146732›Full record

ReviewViruses2022

Virus Safety of Xenotransplantation.

Joachim Denner

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Viruses, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Xenotransplantation of solid organs].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Pig Models in Retinal Research and Retinal Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024
    Review
  15. Monitoring for PERV Following Xenotransplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Potential Infectious Complications in Pig Xenograft Donors and Recipients.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joachim DennerInstitute of Virology, Free University Berlin, 14163 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3244-6085
Freie Universität Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The practice of xenotransplantation using pig islet cells or organs is under development to alleviate the shortage of human donor islet cells or organs for the treatment of diabetes or organ failure. Multiple genetically modified pigs were generated to prevent rejection. Xenotransplantation may be associated with the transmission of potentially zoonotic porcine viruses. In order to prevent this, we developed highly sensitive PCR-based, immunologicals and other methods for the detection of numerous xenotransplantation-relevant viruses. These methods were used for the screening of donor pigs and xenotransplant recipients. Of special interest are the porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) that are integrated in the genome of all pigs, which are able to infect human cells, and that cannot be eliminated by methods that other viruses can. We showed, using droplet digital PCR, that the number of PERV proviruses is different in different pigs (usually around 60). Furthermore, the copy number is different in different organs of a single pig, indicating that PERVs are active in the living animals. We showed that in the first clinical trials treating diabetic patients with pig islet cells, no porcine viruses were transmitted. However, in preclinical trials transplanting pig hearts orthotopically into baboons, porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV), a porcine roseolovirus (PCMV/PRV), and porcine circovirus 3 (PCV3), but no PERVs, were transmitted. PCMV/PRV transmission resulted in a significant reduction of the survival time of the xenotransplant. PCMV/PRV was also transmitted in the first pig heart transplantation to a human patient and possibly contributed to the death of the patient. Transmission means that the virus was detected in the recipient, however it remains unclear whether it can infect primate cells, including human cells. We showed previously that PCMV/PRV can be eliminated from donor pigs by early weaning. PERVs were also not transmitted by inoculation of human cell-adapted PERV into small animals, rhesus monkey, baboons and cynomolgus monkeys, even when pharmaceutical immunosuppression was applied. Since PERVs were not transmitted in clinical, preclinical, or infection experiments, it remains unclear whether they should be inactivated in the pig genome by CRISPR/Cas. In summary, by using our sensitive methods, the safety of xenotransplantation can be ensured.

Indexed as

Endogenous RetrovirusesAnimalsHeterograftsHumansMacaca fascicularisPapioPharmaceutical PreparationsPrimatesTransplantation, HeterologousPharmaceutical Preparationsporcine circovirusesporcine cytomegalovirusporcine endogenous retrovirusesporcine lymphotropic herpesvirusesporcine virusesxenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID36146732
PMCPMC9503113
OpenAlexW4293726862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.