Predegenerated Nerve Allografts Versus Fresh Nerve Allografts in Nerve Repair

This study reevaluated the possibility of using predegenerated nerves as donor nerve allografts for nerve repair and compared the results of functional recovery to those obtained after standard, fresh nerve allograft repair. Twenty donor rats underwent a ligature/ section of the left sciatic nerve 4 weeks before nerve graft harvesting. Forty recipient rats underwent severing of the left sciatic nerve leaving a 15-mm gap between the nerve stumps. Graft repair was undertaken using either the predegenerated left sciatic nerve of the 20 donor rats (predegenerated group, 20 recipient rats) or the normal right sciatic nerve of the 20 donor rats (fresh group, 20 recipient rats). Recovery of function was assessed by gait analysis, electrophysiologic testing and histologic studies. Walking tracks measurements at 2 and 3 months, electromyography parameters at 2 and 3 months, peroperative nerve conduction velocity and nerve action potential amplitude measurements at 3 months, as well as assessments of myelinated nerve fiber density and surface of myelination showed that fresh and predegenerated nerve grafts induced a comparable return of function although there was some trend in higher electrophysiologic values in the predegenerated group. The only slight but significant difference was a larger mean nerve fiber diameter in the nerve segment distal to a predegenerated nerve graft compared to a fresh nerve graft. Although our study does not show a dramatic long-term advantage for predegenerated nerve grafts compared to fresh nerve grafts, their use as prosthetic material is encouraging

Myocardial Gene Expression Profiling to Predict and Identify Cardiac Allograft Acute Cellular Rejection: The GET-Study

Serial invasive endomyocardial biopsies (EMB) remain the gold standard for acute cellular rejection (ACR) diagnosis. However histological grading has several limitations. We aimed to explore the value of myocardial Gene Expression Profiling (GEP) for diagnosing and identifying predictive biomarkers of ACR.A case-control study nested within a retrospective heart transplant patients cohort included 126 patients with median (IQR) age 50 (41-57) years and 111 (88%) males. Among 1157 EMB performed, 467 were eligible (i.e, corresponding to either ISHLT grade 0 or ≥3A), among which 36 were selected for GEP according to the grading: 0 (CISHLT, n = 13); rejection ≥3A (RISHLT, n = 13); 0 one month before ACR (BRISHLT, n = 10).We found 294 genes differentially expressed between CISHLT and RISHLT, mainly involved in immune activation, and inflammation. Hierarchical clustering showed a clear segregation of CISHLT and RISHLT groups and heterogeneity of GEP within RISHLT. All EMB presented immune activation, but some RISHLT EMB were strongly subject to inflammation, whereas others, closer to CISHLT, were characterized by structural modifications with lower inflammation level. We identified 15 probes significantly different between BRISHLT and CISHLT, including the gene of the muscular protein TTN. This result suggests that structural alterations precede inflammation in ACR. Linear Discriminant Analysis based on these 15 probes was able to identify the histological status of every 36 samples.Myocardial GEP is a helpful method to accurately diagnose ACR, and predicts rejection one month before its histological occurrence. These results should be considered in cardiac allograft recipients' care