Detailed Kinetics of the Direct Allo-Response in Human Liver Transplant Recipients: New Insights from an Optimized Assay

Conventional assays for quantification of allo-reactive T-cell precursor frequencies (PF) are relatively insensitive. We present a robust assay for quantification of PF of T-cells with direct donor-specificity, and establish the kinetics of circulating donor-specific T cells after liver transplantation (LTx). B cells from donor splenocytes were differentiated into professional antigen-presenting cells by CD40-engagement (CD40-B cells). CFSE-labelled PBMC from LTx-recipients obtained before and at several time points after LTx, were stimulated with donor-derived or 3rd party CD40-B cells. PF of donor-specific T cells were calculated from CFSE-dilution patterns, and intracellular IFN-γ was determined after re-stimulation with CD40-B cells. Compared to splenocytes, stimulations with CD40-B cells resulted in 3 to 5-fold higher responding T-cell PF. Memory and naïve T-cell subsets responded equally to allogeneic CD40-B cell stimulation. Donor-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell PF ranged from 0.5 to 19% (median: 5.2%). One week after LTx, PF of circulating donor-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells increased significantly, while only a minor increase in numbers of T cells reacting to 3rd party allo-antigens was observed. One year after LTx numbers of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells reacting to donor antigens, as well as those reacting to 3rd party allo-antigens, were slightly lower compared to pre-transplant values. Moreover, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells responding to donor-derived, as well as those reacting to 3rd party CD40-B cells, produced less IFN-γ. In conclusion, our alternative approach enables detection of allo-reactive human T cells at high frequencies, and after application we conclude that donor-specific T-cell PF increase immediately after LTx. However, no evidence for a specific loss of circulating T-cells recognizing donor allo-antigens via the direct pathway up to 1 year after LTx was obtained, underscoring the relative insensitiveness of previous assays

Leadership = Communication? The relations of leaders' communication styles with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the relations between leaders' communication styles and charismatic leadership, human-oriented leadership (leader's consideration), task-oriented leadership (leader's initiating structure), and leadership outcomes. Methodology: A survey was conducted among 279 employees of a governmental organization. The following six main communication styles were operationalized: verbal aggressiveness, expressiveness, preciseness, assuredness, supportiveness, and argumentativeness. Regression analyses were employed to test three main hypotheses. Findings: In line with expectations, the study showed that charismatic and human-oriented leadership are mainly communicative, while task-oriented leadership is significantly less communicative. The communication styles were strongly and differentially related to knowledge sharing behaviors, perceived leader performance, satisfaction with the leader, and subordinate's team commitment. Multiple regression analyses showed that the leadership styles mediated the relations between the communication styles and leadership outcomes. However, leader's preciseness explained variance in perceived leader performance and satisfaction with the leader above and beyond the leadership style variables. Implications: This study offers potentially invaluable input for leadership training programs by showing the importance of leader's supportiveness, assuredness, and preciseness when communicating with subordinates. Originality/value: Although one of the core elements of leadership is interpersonal communication, this study is one of the first to use a comprehensive communication styles instrument in the study of leadership. © 2009 The Author(s)

Deficient TNF-alpha and IFN-gamma Production Correlates With Nondetectable Donor-Specific Cytotoxicity After Clinical Kidney Transplantation

Background. We previously reported that no cytotoxic T-lymphocyte precursor frequencies (CTLpf) were found in 60% of patients on azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil+Pred long after kidney transplantation. We questioned whether the absence of donor-specific CTLpf was associated with low levels Of stimulator), Th1 (tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-alpha, interferon [IFN]-gamma) or high levels of regulatory Th2 (interleukin [IL]-4, IL-6, IL-10) cytokines. Methods. In this study, peripheral blood monocyte cells (PBMC) were stimulated with irradiated donor cells. After 7 days, cytokine production was determined by cytokine bead array, and CTLpf by limiting dilution assay. Results. Patients with detectable CTLpf (>= 10/10(6) PBMC) had significantly higher levels of TNF-alpha (P=0.04) and IFN-gamma (P=0.02) than patients with nondetectable CTLpf (<10/10(6) PBMC). Donor-reactive IL-4, IL-6, and IL-10 production was comparable in both patient groups. Additionally, CTLpf was positively correlated with TNF-alpha (r(s)=0.54, P=0.0003) and IFN-gamma (r(s)=0.64, P<0.0001) production. Conclusion. The absence of donor-specific CTLp after transplantation correlates with low levels of stimulatory cytokines, not with elevated levels of regulatory cytokines

Mutual tolerance after liver and not after heart transplantation? Evaluation of patient-anti-donor and donor-anti-patient responses by mixed lymphocyte culture

The ultimate goal in organ transplantation is the induction of donor-specific transplantation tolerance. The fact that in some patients it is possible to withdraw immunosuppressive therapy completely, suggests that immunological adaptation or donor-specific nonresponsiveness can occur following transplantation. In earlier studies we have shown that after blood transfusion, the mixed lymphocyte reactivity of the donor against patient peripheral blood mononuclear lymphocytes taken after blood transfusion gradually decreased with time. This may reflect the induction of an immunoregulatory mechanism, which protects the recipient against an immune reaction of the donor, enhancing a state of mixed chimerism. A similar phenomenon might also play a role in the immunological mechanism leading to transplantation tolerance. Therefore, we studied responses in patients with a well-functioning liver and heart transplant using a primed lymphocyte test (PLT) and a mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC). Two years after liver transplantation the PLT and MLC responses of patient against donor were decreased significantly compared to the situation before transplantation The response of donor against patient was also lower two years after transplantation The decreased responses were donor-specific since responses to third-party cells generally remained unchanged. Tn heart transplant recipients we could not detect a donor-specific downregulation. The reversed response, of donor against patient, was not different from responses of third-party against patient cells. Therefore, we conclude that donor-specific nonresponsiveness is not induced in patients with well-functioning heart transplants. In contrast, after a successful liver transplantation the response of patient against donor is decreased, as is the reversed response. It may be valuable to test whether in liver transplant patients withdrawing or reducing of maintenance immunosuppression is permitted for patients who appear to have developed two-way donor-specific hyporeactivity

Mutual tolerance after liver and not after heart transplantation? Evaluation of patient-anti-donor and donor-anti-patient responses by mixed lymphocyte culture

The ultimate goal in organ transplantation is the induction of donor-specific transplantation tolerance. The fact that in some patients it is possible to withdraw immunosuppressive therapy completely, suggests that immunological adaptation or donor-specific nonresponsiveness can occur following transplantation. In earlier studies we have shown that after blood transfusion, the mixed lymphocyte reactivity of the donor against patient peripheral blood mononuclear lymphocytes taken after blood transfusion gradually decreased with time. This may reflect the induction of an immunoregulatory mechanism, which protects the recipient against an immune reaction of the donor, enhancing a state of mixed chimerism. A similar phenomenon might also play a role in the immunological mechanism leading to transplantation tolerance. Therefore, we studied responses in patients with a well-functioning liver and heart transplant using a primed lymphocyte test (PLT) and a mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC). Two years after liver transplantation the PLT and MLC responses of patient against donor were decreased significantly compared to the situation before transplantation The response of donor against patient was also lower two years after transplantation The decreased responses were donor-specific since responses to third-party cells generally remained unchanged. Tn heart transplant recipients we could not detect a donor-specific downregulation. The reversed response, of donor against patient, was not different from responses of third-party against patient cells. Therefore, we conclude that donor-specific nonresponsiveness is not induced in patients with well-functioning heart transplants. In contrast, after a successful liver transplantation the response of patient against donor is decreased, as is the reversed response. It may be valuable to test whether in liver transplant patients withdrawing or reducing of maintenance immunosuppression is permitted for patients who appear to have developed two-way donor-specific hyporeactivity