The systemic cellular immune response against allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells is influenced by inflammation, differentiation and MHC compatibility: in vivo study in the horse.
Abstract: The effectiveness and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) can be affected by patient's immune recognition. Thus, MSC immunogenicity and their immunomodulatory properties are crucial aspects for therapy. Immune responses after allogeneic MSC administration have been reported in different species, including equine. Interactions of allogenic MSCs with the recipient's immune system can be influenced by factors like matching or mismatching for the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) between donor-recipient, and by the levels of MHC expression in MSCs. The latter can vary upon MSC inflammatory exposure or differentiation, such as chondrogenic induction, making both priming and differentiation interesting therapeutic strategies. This study investigated the systemic immune cellular response against allogeneic equine MSCs in these situations. Either MSCs in basal conditions (MSC-naïve), pro-inflammatory primed (MSC-primed) or chondrogenically differentiated (MSC-chondro) were repeatedly administered subcutaneously into autologous, MHC-matched or MHC-mismatched allogeneic equine recipients. At different time-points after each administration, lymphocytes were obtained from recipient horses and exposed to the same type of MSCs to assess the proliferative response of different T cell subsets (cytotoxic, helper, regulatory), B cells, and interferon gamma (IFNγ) secretion. Higher proliferative response of helper and cytotoxic T lymphocytes and IFNγ secretion was observed in response to all types of MHC-mismatched MSCs over MHC-matched ones. MSC-primed produced the highest immune response, followed by MSC-naïve, and MSC-chondro. However, MSC-primed activated Treg and had a mild effect on B cells, and the response after their second administration was similar to the first one. On the other hand, both MSC-chondro and MSC-naïve barely induced Treg response but promoted B lymphocyte activation, and proportionally induced a higher cell response after the second administration. In conclusion, both the type of MSC conditioning and the MHC compatibility influenced systemic immune recognition of equine MSCs after single and repeated administrations, but the response was different. Selecting MHC-matched donors would be particularly recommended for MSC-primed and repeated MSC-naïve administrations. While MHC-mismatching in MSC-chondro would be less critical, B cell response should not be ignored. Comprehensively investigating the immune response against equine allogeneic MSCs is crucial for advancing veterinary cell therapies.
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.
This research investigates how stem cell therapies in horses are influenced by factors including inflammation, differentiation, and genetic compatibility. The results found each element can alter the immune response, which is important to consider when developing viable treatments.
Objective of the Research
The research aims to understand how the immune response in horses changes when mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from another horse are introduced into the body. Crucially, it seeks to unravel whether factors like genetic compatibility and inflammation can impact how effective stem cell therapies are.
Methodology
The study used equine MSCs in various states – basal condition (MSC-naive), inflamed (MSC-primed), or differentiated (MSC-chondro) – and injected them into horses that either had major histocompatibility complex (MHC) matched or mismatched to the donor cells.
Researchers then observed the immune response at different times following each injection, specifically looking at proliferation of various T cell types, B cells, and the secretion of interferon gamma (IFNγ).
Findings
The study found that MHC-mismatched MSCs led to a higher immune response than MHC-matched cells, with the primed cells creating the most significant effect, followed by the naive, then the differentiated cells.
However, the primed cells also activated regulatory T cells and mildly triggered B cells, and this reaction was consistent across repeated injections.
In contrast, both the naive and differentiated cells induced minimal regulatory T cell response but prompted B cell activation. The resultant cell response also increased after the second injection.
Conclusion and Implication
The study concludes that both the condition of the MSCs and their MHC compatibility with the recipient can influence the immune system’s response. As such, in therapies involving repeated administration of naive cells or primed cells, it would be beneficial to use MHC-matched donors, while for differentiated cells MHC compatibility is less critical.
However, the researchers suggest that the response of B cells should not be overlooked in these treatments. Detailed knowledge of these immune responses is key to advancing veterinary cell therapies, particularly those involving stem cells.
Cite This Article
APA
Cequier A, Vázquez FJ, Vitoria A, Bernad E, Fuente S, Serrano MB, Zaragoza MP, Romero A, Rodellar C, Barrachina L.
(2024).
The systemic cellular immune response against allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells is influenced by inflammation, differentiation and MHC compatibility: in vivo study in the horse.
Front Vet Sci, 11, 1391872.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1391872
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Equine Surgery and Medicine Service, Veterinary Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Vázquez, Francisco José
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Equine Surgery and Medicine Service, Veterinary Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Vitoria, Arantza
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Equine Surgery and Medicine Service, Veterinary Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Bernad, Elvira
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Fuente, Sara
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Equine Surgery and Medicine Service, Veterinary Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Serrano, María Belén
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Zaragoza, María Pilar
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Romero, Antonio
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Equine Surgery and Medicine Service, Veterinary Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Rodellar, Clementina
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Barrachina, Laura
Biochemical Genetics Laboratory LAGENBIO, Institute for Health Research Aragón (IIS), AgriFood Institute of Aragón (IA2), University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Equine Surgery and Medicine Service, Veterinary Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Alvites R, Branquinho M, Sousa AC, Lopes B, Sousa P, Maurício AC. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells and their paracrine activity—immunomodulation mechanisms and how to influence the therapeutic potential.. Pharmaceutics (2022) 14:381.
Lo Monaco M, Merckx G, Ratajczak J, Gervois P, Hilkens P, Clegg P. Stem cells for cartilage repair: preclinical studies and insights in translational animal models and outcome measures.. Stem Cells Int (2018) 2018:9079538.
Aldrich ED, Cui X, Murphy CA, Lim KS, Hooper GJ, McIlwraith CW. Allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cells for cartilage regeneration: a review of in vitro evaluation, clinical experience, and translational opportunities.. Stem Cells Transl Med (2021) 10:1500–15.
Kot M, Baj-Krzyworzeka M, Szatanek R, Musiał-Wysocka A, Suda-Szczurek M, Majka M. The importance of HLA assessment in “off-the-shelf” allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells based-therapies.. Int J Mol Sci (2019) 20:5680.
García-Sancho J, Sánchez A, Vega A, Noriega DC, Nocito M. Influence of HLA matching on the efficacy of allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cell therapies for osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease.. Transplant Direct (2017) 3:e205.
Isakova IA, Lanclos C, Bruhn J, Kuroda MJ, Baker KC, Krishnappa V. Allo-reactivity of mesenchymal stem cells in rhesus macaques is dose and haplotype dependent and limits durable cell engraftment in vivo.. PLoS One (2014) 9:e87238.
Lohan P, Coleman CM, Murphy JM, Griffin MD, Ritter T, Ryan AE. Changes in immunological profile of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells after differentiation: should we be concerned?. Stem Cell Res Ther (2014) 5:99.
de Vries-van Melle ML, Tihaya MS, Kops N, Koevoet WJLM, Mary Murphy J, Verhaar JAN. Chondrogenic differentiation of human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells in a simulated osteochondral environment is hydrogel dependent.. Eur Cells Mater (2014) 27:112–23.
Leijs MJC, Villafuertes E, Haeck JC, Koevoet WJLM, Fernandez-Gutierrez B, Hoogduijn MJ. Encapsulation of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells in alginate extends local presence and therapeutic function.. Eur Cells Mater (2017) 33:43–58.
Cassano JM, Schnabel LV, Goodale MB, Fortier LA. The immunomodulatory function of equine MSCs is enhanced by priming through an inflammatory microenvironment or TLR3 ligand.. Vet Immunol Immunopathol (2018) 195:33–9.
Ribitsch I, Baptista PM, Lange-Consiglio A, Melotti L, Patruno M, Jenner F. Large animal models in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering: to do or not to do.. Front Bioeng Biotechnol (2020) 8:972.
Carrade DD, Lame MW, Kent MS, Clark KC, Walker NJ, Borjesson DL. Comparative analysis of the immunomodulatory properties of equine adult-derived mesenchymal stem cells.. Cell Med (2012) 4:1–11.
Sivanathan KN, Gronthos S, Grey ST, Rojas-Canales D, Coates PT. Immunodepletion and hypoxia preconditioning of mouse compact bone cells as a novel protocol to isolate highly immunosuppressive mesenchymal stem cells.. Stem Cells Dev (2017) 26:512–27.
Luk F, Carreras-Planella L, Korevaar SS, de Witte SFH, Borràs FE, Betjes MGH. Inflammatory conditions dictate the effect of mesenchymal stem or stromal cells on B cell function.. Front Immunol (2017) 8:1042.
Najeb M, Samy A, Rizk A, Mosbah E, Karrouf G. Regenerative biologics modulating inflammation and promoting tenogenesis in equine superficial digital flexor tendonitis: from molecular pathways to clinical translation. Ir Vet J 2025 Sep 17;78(1):21.
Lopes RS, Requicha J, Carolino N, Costa E, Carvalho P. Knowledge of companion animals' practitionerson stem-cell based therapies in a clinical context: a questionnaire-based survey in Portugal. BMC Vet Res 2025 Jul 24;21(1):487.