Publikationsdatenbank

Comparison of methods for the detection of porcine cytomegalovirus/roseolovirus in relation to biosafety monitoring of xenotransplantation products (2023)

Art

Zeitschriftenartikel / wissenschaftlicher Beitrag

Autoren

Denner, Joachim (WE 5)

Jhelum, Hina (WE 5)

Hansen, Sabrina (WE 5)

Kaufer, Benedikt B. (WE 5)

Quelle

Xenotransplantation : the official journal of the International Xenotransplantation Association, a section of The Transplantation Society

Bandzählung: 31

Heftzählung: 1

Seiten: e12835

ISSN: 1399-3089

Sprache

Englisch

Verweise

URL (Volltext): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38088083/

DOI: 10.1111/xen.12835

Pubmed: 38088083

Kontakt

Institut für Virologie

Robert-von-Ostertag-Str. 7-13
14163 Berlin
+49 30 838 51833
virologie@vetmed.fu-berlin.de

Abstract / Zusammenfassung

Background: The porcine cytomegalovirus, a porcine roseolovirus (PCMV/PRV), is widely distributed in pig populations. It has been shown that PCMV/PRV was transmitted by pig xenotransplants to non-human primates, and significantly reduced the survival time of the recipient. PCMV/PRV was also transmitted during the first transplantation of a pig heart into a human patient. PCMV/PRV establishes a lifelong persistent infection (latency) in the host, is difficult to detect in this stage, and consequential poses a threat to future clinical xenotransplantations. Therefore, sensitive and specific methods and goal-oriented strategies how, when, and where to test should be used for screening donor pigs.

Methods: In this study we compared experimentally the PCMV/PRV detection methods including PCR-based (real-time PCR, nested PCR) and immunological methods (Western blot assay, ELISA) recently published by Halecker et al. (Sci. Rep. 2022;12(1):21545) and Fischer et al. (Xenotransplantation 2023:e12803). We also compared the antigens used for antibody detection (a recombinant protein and synthetic peptides corresponding to a conserved region of the glycoprotein B, gB).

Results: The published methods can be used for screening donor pigs, with the results being similar. The antigens used for the detection of PCMV/PRV-specific antibodies are almost identical and give comparable results. Overall, the optimal diagnostic tests, the samples used for testing and the time of sampling play a crucial role in preventing the transmission of PCMV/PRV during xenotransplantation.

Conclusion: Sensitive methods are available to screen donor pigs for PCMV/PRV, but a rational application of a combination of PCR-based and immunological methods as well as rational detection strategies are important for the detection of the virus during latency.