Journal Logo

EDITORIALS/REVIEWS/LETTERS AND VIEWPOINTS: LETTERS

Tolerance Induction in Composite Facial Allograft Transplantation in the Rat Model

Reply

Demir, Yavuz M.D.; Ozmen, Selahattin M.D.; Klimczak, Aleksandra M.D.; Siemionow, Maria M.D., Ph.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: March 2006 - Volume 117 - Issue 3 - p 1044-1045
  • Free

Sir:

It was a pleasure to read Dr. Hettiaratchy and Dr. Butler's correspondence regarding our article, “Tolerance Induction in Composite Facial Allograft Transplantation in the Rat Model” (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 114: 1790, 2004). In their letter, they discuss our results in the context of tolerance induction in our hemiface transplantation model. Over the years, the definition of tolerance has changed with the introduction of different therapeutic strategies.1–3Complete tolerance is defined as the state of indefinite allograft survival with stable function, without the requirement of immunosuppressive maintenance therapy.1–3 However, Monaco1 suggested that the tolerance induction protocol must take into consideration the relationship of time in any definition of operational tolerance. Therefore, “strategies directed at achieving a minimal immunosuppressive regimen (rather than complete immunosuppression withdrawal) might be more appropriate when the concept of time and tolerance are considered.”1 Calne2 introduced a new concept of “prope” (almost) tolerance, which is defined as donor-specific hyporesponsiveness under a lower dosage of cyclosporine A immunosuppressive therapy that will reduce immunosuppression-related side effects but will allow improved allograft survival without acute or chronic rejection episodes.2 This partial tolerance state with a minimal baseline nontoxic dose of maintenance therapy is suggested to be clinically more appropriate. Sachs introduced an updated definition, stating that “tolerance is not merely the absence of a response, but may involve an active down-regulatory response and may be induced through a variety of mechanisms.”3

In our study, down-regulatory response and functional immune deficit were attributed to the low maintenance dose of the cyclosporine A monotherapy allowing for indefinite survival of hemifacial skin allografts. Mixed lymphocyte reaction assays confirmed that hemiface transplant recipients were functionally tolerant to the recipient and donor antigens and were competent to respond to the third-party alloantigens. Colson et al.,4 in their rat experimental model, defined lymphocytes from mixed allogenic chimeras as functionally tolerant to the host when a stimulation index of 2.6 was present. In our study, a mixed lymphocyte reaction assay with a stimulation index of 2.7 confirmed down-regulation of the immunological responses. In addition, lower response to the third-party antigens, when compared with naïve controls, confirmed that the low dose of cyclosporine A therapy was sufficient not only to down-regulate immunological response but also to maintain immunological competence of hemiface transplant recipients.

Functional tolerance was achieved in different experimental models and was defined as successful organ acceptance and long-term survival.5 In our model, we achieved functional tolerance, as evidenced by graft acceptance up to 240 days after transplantation and the absence of an aggressive response in the mixed lymphocyte reaction assay. In our discussion section, we emphasized that functional tolerance was achieved in the hemiface transplant recipients under a low maintenance dose of cyclosporine A monotherapy. We have not claimed to achieve complete tolerance, neither in the abstract nor in the discussion.

Our protocol may be clinically applicable because of development of the prope (almost) tolerant state in facial allograft recipients under cyclosporine A monotherapy.

Yavuz Demir, M.D.

Selahattin Ozmen, M.D.

Aleksandra Klimczak, M.D.

Faculty of Medicine, Afyon Kocatepe University

Maria Siemionow, M.D., Ph.D.

The Cleveland Clinic Foundation

REFERENCES

1.Monaco, A. P. Prospects and strategies for clinical tolerance. Transplant. Proc. 36: 227, 2004.
2.Calne, R. Y. Prope tolerance: The future of organ transplantation from the laboratory to the clinic. Int. Immunopharmacol. 5: 163, 2005.
3.Sachs, D. H. Mixed chimerism as an approach to transplantation tolerance. Clin. Immunol. 95: S63, 2000.
4.Colson, Y. L., Zadach, K., Nalesnik, M., and Ildstad, S. Mixed allogenic chimerism in the rat. Transplantation 60: 971, 1995.
5.Goggins, W. C., Fisher, R. A., Dattilo, J. B., et al. Analysis of functional renal allograft tolerance with single-dose rapamycin based induction immunosuppression. Transplantation 63: 310, 1997.

Section Description

GUIDELINES

Letters to the Editor and Viewpoints are welcome. Letters to the Editor discuss material recently published in the Journal. Letters will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article's publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters and Viewpoints are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Viewpoints pertain to issues of general interest, even if they are not related to items previously published (such as unique techniques, brief technology updates, technical notes, and so on). Please note the following criteria for Letters and Viewpoints:

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters and Viewpoints should be submitted electronically via PRS' enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/. We strongly encourage authors to submit figures in color.

We reserve the right to edit letters and viewpoints to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a letter and/or viewpoint constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and assignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the letters to the Editor and viewpoints represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

©2006American Society of Plastic Surgeons