{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04966887417218543, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04249448123620309, 'mean_word_length': 5.616788321167883, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Induction of indirect donor‐specific hyporesponsiveness by transportal RT1‐peptide pulse in rat skin transplantation

Abstract In the present study, we examined whether transportal pulse of class I major histocompatibility complex (MHC) allopeptides can induce indirect (non‐chimeric) donor‐specific hyporesponsiveness, using a high‐responder rat skin transplantation model. Two donorspecific 8‐amino acid peptides corresponding to residues 58–65 and 70–77 in the α1 helical region of RT1.Aa were synthesized. In order to test immunogenicity of these peptides, mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) was performed. Then, 100‐μg portions of peptides were injected into recipient Lewis (LEW, RT1.A1) rats via the portal vein 14 days before skin transplantation. Skin allografts from August Copenhagen Irish (ACI, RTIa) or Wistar King A (WKA, RT1k, third‐party) donors were transplanted to LEW (RT11) recipients. Transportal pulse of residues 58–65 and 70–77 prolonged graft survival significantly in ACI‐to‐LEW skin transplantation (17.6±0.40 and 18.0±0.45 days) compared with control (14.2±0.37 days). However, pulse of residues 106–113, a non‐donor‐specific control, did not prolong graft survival time (14.6±0.40 days) in the same combination. Regarding the thirdparty donor, residues 58–65 injected into LEW recipients had no effect on survival time of skin grafts (19.0±0.84 days) derived from WKA donors compared with the untreated WKA‐to‐LEW control (19.4±0.93 days). Transportal pulse of RT1.Aa peptides induced donorspecific hyporesponsiveness even in a high‐responder rat skin transplantation model. Our results suggest that graft enhancement by transportal exposure to donor cells may not be induced by a chimeric process but, instead, by an indirect mechanism not involving intervention of viable donor cells.