Infectious risk and retroviral restriction factors in xenotransplantation

The clinical application of xenotransplantation evokes immunological and microbiological as well as virological challenges. Porcine pathogens that do not show any symptoms in their natural host could exhibit a risk of fatal infections to humans. The presence of pig infectious agents including zoonotic and dissimilar agents should be reduced by specific pathogen free (spf) breeding of donor animals. However, the genetic information of porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV) is integrated in the pig genome and can not be eradicated by spf breeding. The concerns about PERV for human xenograft recipients are based on data of in vitro replication of PERV in some human cell lines. So far, viral replication of PERV has been difficult to demonstrate in non‐human primate cell lines and in preclinical studies of non‐human primates receiving porcine xenografts, respectively. In this regard, natural and effective mechanisms of human and porcine cells counteracting productive infections caused by PERV are important to investigate. Intracellular proteins and components of the innate immune system including endogenous “antiretroviral restriction factors” act at various steps in retroviral replication. The cellular front is composed by several constitutively expressed genes which prevent or suppress retroviral infections. Some of these factors such as members of the tripartite motif (TRIM) and the apolipoprotein B mRNA‐editing polypeptide (APOBEC) families as well as tetherin and zinc‐finger antiviral protein (ZAP) could be useful in the management of PERV in xenotransplantation. The risks of infection and the potential role of antiretroviral restriction factors in xenotransplantation are presented in detail.     

Development and validation of a Western immunoblot assay for detection of antibodies to porcine endogenous retrovirus

BACKGROUND: Reports that pig endogenous retrovirus (PERV) infects human cells in vitro have heightened the importance of molecular and serologic monitoring of xenograft recipients for evidence of infection with PERV. We report the development and validation of a PERV-specific Western immunoblot assay for the diagnostic testing of porcine xenografts recipients. This assay is based upon the serological cross-reactivity observed between PERV variants capable of infecting human cells in vitro and other mammalian C type retroviruses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Strong reactivity between PERV expressing embryonic pig kidney PK-15 cells and antisera raised against whole virus preparations of murine leukemia virus, gibbon ape leukemia virus (GALV), and simian sarcoma-associated virus was demonstrated by an immunofluorescence assay, suggesting specific antigenic cross-reactivity between this group of viruses and PERV. Western immunoblot analysis demonstrated that anti-GALV antisera reacted with three proteins in PK-15 cells having molecular masses of 30, 55, and 66 kDa. Antisera specific for the Gag proteins of either GALV or simian sarcoma-associated virus reacted with the 30-kDa (major) and 55-kDa (minor) proteins present in PK-15 cells and in PERV-infected 293 human kidney cells, likely representing reactivity to the processed and precursor forms of the PERV Gag protein, respectively. No reactivity was seen in uninfected 293 cells. Analysis of plasma samples from 200 United States blood donors and from 58 human immunodeficiency virus-1, 18 human immunodeficiency virus-2, 13 human T-cell lymphotrophic virus-I, 21 human T-cell lymphotrophic virus-II, and 15 cytomegalovirus infected controls were negative. CONCLUSIONS: As this assay is based on PERV antigen derived from infected human cells, it clearly has the capacity to detect a serologic response towards PERV variants that have zoonotic potential and will allow for the accurate determination of PERV-specific seroreactivity in porcine xenograft recipients.     

Microbiological safety of xenotransplantation compared with allotransplantation

Transmission of viral, bacterial, parasitic, and fungal infections via organ allografts is uncommon but may be associated with life‐threatening disease. Internationally, programs for screening of human organ donors for infectious risk are non‐uniform and vary with national standards and the availability of screening assays. Further, the failure to recognize and/or to report transmission events limits the utility of available data regarding the incidence of allograft‐associated disease transmission. Advances in xenotransplantation biology have allowed some limited clinical trials with the prospect for increased opportunities for clinical xenotransplantation. As with human allotransplantation, the examination of infectious risk has been a central theme in these studies. Significant advances have been made in the breeding and screening of swine for preclinical studies including the identification of novel, potential human pathogens derived from source animals. Thus far, “expected” xenograft‐derived pathogens such as porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) have become activated in immunosuppressed primates but have not resulted in systemic infection outside the xenograft. PCMV has been bred out of swine herds by early weaning strategies. Conversely, host pathogens such as primate‐derived cytomegalovirus (CMV) have become activated and have produced serious infectious complications. These infections are preventable using antiviral prophylaxis. Xenogeneic tissues appear to be relatively resistant to infection by common human pathogens such as HIV, HTLV and the hepatitis viruses. Concerns regarding the potential activation of latent porcine retroviruses from xenograft tissues have resulted in the development of novel assays for xenotropic porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV). PERV transmission to primate xenograft recipients or to human cells in in vivo models has not been detected. Multiple intrinsic cellular mechanisms appear to be active in the prevention of infection of human cells by PERV. Further, PERV appears to be susceptible to available antiretroviral agents. Thus, while the absolute risk for such infections remains unknown in the absence of human studies with prolonged graft survival in immunosuppressed xenograft recipients, the risk of transmission to human recipients appears limited. Some general principles have been developed to guide clinical trials: Outcomes of xenotransplantation trials, including any infectious disease transmissions, should be reported in the scientific literature and to appropriate public health authorities. Surveillance programs should be developed to detect known infectious agents as well as previously unknown or unexpected pathogens in the absence of recognizable clinical syndromes. Standardization of procedures and validation by expert and/or reference laboratories are needed for microbiological assays. Such validation may require international collaboration. Repositories of samples from source animals and from recipients prior to, and following xenograft transplantation are essential to the investigation of possible infectious disease events. Infection is common in allograft recipients. Thus, in advance of clinical trials, policies and procedures should be developed to guide the evaluation of any infectious syndromes that may develop. (e.g. fever of unknown origin [FUO], leukocytosis, leukopenia, graft dysfunction, pneumonia, hepatitis, abscess formation) in xenograft recipients. Based on preclinical experience these procedures will include: (i) Exclusion of infectious syndromes commonly associated with allotransplantation (e.g. CMV, bacterial pneumonia); (ii) Evaluation of PERV infection by serologic and NAT testing; (iii) Assessment of other recipients of xenografts derived from the same herd or source of swine; and (iv) Evaluation of social contacts of the recipient. Consideration of investigation of xenograft recipients for unknown pathogens may require application of advanced research technologies, possibly including use of broad‐range molecular probes, microarrays or high throughput pyrosequencing. References: 1. Meije Y, TÖnjes RR, Fishman JA. Retroviral restriction factors and infectious risk in xenotransplantation. Amer J Transplant 2010; 10: 1511–1516. 2. Fishman JA, Scobie L, Takeuchi Y. Xenotransplantation‐associated infectious risk: A WHO consultation. Xenotransplantation 2012; 19: 72–81.     

Infectious disease risks in xenotransplantation

Hurdles exist to clinical xenotransplantation including potential infectious transmission from nonhuman species to xenograft recipients. In anticipation of clinical trials of xenotransplantation, the associated infectious risks have been investigated. Swine and immunocompromised humans share some potential pathogens. Swine herpesviruses including porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and porcine lymphotropic herpesvirus (PLHV) are largely species‐specific and do not, generally, infect human cells. Human cellular receptors exist for porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), which infects certain human‐derived cell lines in vitro. PERV‐inactivated pigs have been produced recently. Human infection due to PERV has not been described. A screening paradigm can be applied to exclude potential human pathogens from “designated pathogen free” breeding colonies. Various microbiological assays have been developed for screening and diagnosis including antibody‐based tests and qualitative and quantitative molecular assays for viruses. Additional assays may be required to diagnose pig‐specific organisms in human xenograft recipients. Significant progress has been made in the evaluation of the potential infectious risks of clinical xenotransplantation. Infectious risk would be amplified by intensive immunosuppression. The available data suggest that risks of xenotransplant‐associated recipient infection are manageable and that clinical trials can be performed safely. Possible infectious risks of xenotransplantation to the community at large are undefined but merit consideration.     

Virus safety in xenotransplantation: first exploratory in vivo studies in small laboratory animals and non-human primates

For xenotransplantation, the transplantation of animal cells, tissues and organs into human recipients, to date, pigs are favored as potential donors. Beside ethical, immunological, physiological and technical problems, the microbiological safety of the xenograft has to be guaranteed. It will be possible to eliminate all of the known porcine microorgansims in the nearby future by vaccinating or specified pathogen-free breeding. Thus, the main risk will come from the porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) which are present in the pig genome as proviruses of different subtypes. PERVs will therefore be transmitted, with the xenograft, to the human recipient. PERVs can infect numerous different types of human primary cells and cell lines in vitro and were shown to adapt to these cells by serial passaging on uninfected cells. Furthermore, PERVs have high homology to other retroviruses, such as feline leukemia virus (FeLV) or murine leukemia virus (MuLV), which are known to induce tumors or immunodeficiencies in the infected host. To evaluate the potential risk of a trans-species transmission of PERV in vivo, naive and immunosuppressed rats, guinea pigs and minks were inoculated with PERV and screened over a period of 3 months for an antibody reaction against PERV proteins or for the integration of proviral DNA into the genomic DNA of the host's cells. Furthermore, we inoculated three different species of non-human primates, rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta), pig-tailed monkey (Macaca nemestrina) and baboon (Papio hamadryas) with high titers of a human-adapted PERV. To simulate a situation in xenotransplantation, the animals received a daily triple immunosuppression using cyclosporine A, methylprednisolone and RAD, a rapamycin derivative, presently under development by Novartis. None of the small laboratory animals or the non-human primates showed production of antibodies against PERV or evidence of integration of proviral DNA in blood cells or cells of several organs, 3 months after virus inoculation, despite the observation that cells of the animals used in the experiment were infectible in vitro. This apparent difference in the outcome of the in vitro and the in vivo data might be explained by an efficient elimination of the virus by the innate or adaptive immunity of the animals.     

Safety of xenotransplantation: screening the donor pig and the recipient

Introduction: Xenotransplantation using pig cells and tissues may be associated with the transmission of porcine microorganisms including bacteria, parasites, fungi and viruses to the human recipient and may result in zoonones. Porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) represent a special risk since PERV‐A and PERV‐B are present in the genome of all pigs and infect human cells. PERV‐C is not present in all pigs and does not infect human cells. However, recombinants between PERV‐A and PERV‐C have been observed in normal pigs characterised by higher replication rates compared with PERV‐A, and they are also able to infect human cells (1). Methods: In the past years numerous assays based on the PCR technology have been developed to screen for the prevalence and expression of PERV and other porcine microorganisms in the donor pig (2). Whereas most microorganisms may be eliminated by designated pathogen‐free breeding, PERVs cannot be removed this way. In addition, assays have been developed to analyse the recipient for the transmission of PERV and other microorganisms, either using PCR methods or immunological assays to detect an antibody production as a result of infection (3). Results: Using these assays, no transmission of PERV as well as of other porcine microorganisms has been observed in first preclinical and clinical xenotransplantations or animal infection experiments. This was especially true for the first clinical transplantation of pig islet cells approved by the New Zealand government (4). Until now there is no susceptible animal model to study PERV transmission and transplantations of porcine cells or organs to non‐human primates as they are associated with limitations concerning the safety aspect, which do not allow transmitting the negative findings to humans (5). Different experimental approaches are under development to reduce the probability of PERV transmission, e.g. the generation of transgenic pigs expressing PERV‐specific siRNA inhibiting PERV expression by RNA interference (6), genotypic selection of pigs with a low prevalence and expression of PERV and neutralising antibodies against the envelope proteins inhibiting PERV infection (7). Conclusion: Investigations of the last years resulted in highly sensitive and specific methods to study PERV and other microorganisms in donor pigs and human recipients of xenotransplants. These methods showed absence of PERV transmission in all investigated cases, both in more than 200 human xenotransplant recipients, mostly recipients of cellular xenotransplants, as well as in non‐human primates and small animals. New technologies under development may further decrease the probability of transmission. References: 1. Denner J. Recombinant porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV‐A/C): A new risk for xenotransplantation? Arch Virol 2008; 153: 1421–1426. 2. Kaulitz D, Mihica D, Dorna J, Costa MR, Petersen B, Niemann H, TÖnjes RR, Denner J. Development of sensitive methods for detection of porcine endogenous retrovirus‐C (PERV‐C) in the genome of pigs J Virol Methods 2011; 175(1): 60–65. 3. Denner, J. Infectious risk in xenotransplantation – what post‐transplant screening for the human recipient? Xenotransplantation 2011; 18(3): 151–157. 4. Wynyard S, Garkavenko O, Nathu D, Denner J, Elliott R. Microbiological safety of the first clinical pig islet xenotransplantation trial in New Zealand, submitted. 5. Mattiuzzo G, Takeuchi Y. Suboptimal porcine endogenous retrovirus infection in non‐human primate cells: implication for preclinical xenotransplantation. PLoS One 2010; 5(10): e13203. 6. Semaan M, Kaulitz D, Petersen B, Niemann H, Denner J. Long‐term effects of PERV‐specific RNA interference in transgenic pigs. Xenotransplantation 2012; 19(2): 112–21. 7. Kaulitz D, Fiebig U, Eschricht M, Wurzbacher C, Kurth R, Denner J. Generation of neutralising antibodies against porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs). Virology 2011; 411(1): 78–86.     

Retroviral Restriction Factors and Infectious Risk in Xenotransplantation

The clinical application of xenotransplantation poses immunologic, ethical, and microbiologic challenges. Significant progress has been made in the investigation of each of these areas. Among concerns regarding infectious risks for human xenograft recipients is the identification in swine of infectious agents including porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV) that are capable of replication in some human cell lines. PERV replication has, however, been difficult to demonstrate in primate‐derived cell lines and in preclinical studies of non‐human primates receiving porcine xenografts. Endogenous ‘retroviral restriction factors’ are intracellular proteins and components of the innate immune system that act at various steps in retroviral replication. Recent studies suggest that some of these factors may have applications in the management of endogenous retroviruses in xenotransplantation. The risks of PERV infection and the potential role of retroviral restriction factors in xenotransplantation are reviewed in detail.     

Porcine endogenus retrovirus transmission from pig cell line to mouse tissues but not human cells in nude mice

The continuous shortage of human donor organs for transplantation has led to new interest in the application of pig organs. However, reports of pig endogenous retroviruses (PERV), which are able to infect human cells in vitro, have raised concerns about the transmission of PERV to the recipients or even to other community members. In this study, PK15 and human 7721 cell lines were implanted into each flank of nude mice and tumors appeared several weeks postimplantation. PERV infection was detected by PCR, using cytochrome oxidase B sequences as the specific marker for pig DNA. The results showed that PERV gag sequence were positive in mice livers, kidneys, hearts, and lungs, but no cytochrome oxidase B sequences detected, which indicates the absence of pig-mouse microchimerism. The results also showed that PERV did not infect human 7721 tumors in mice. This study confirmed the presence of PERV transmission from pig-to-mouse tissue and strengthened the concern of the risk of transmitting PERV through pig cells xenotransplantation.     

Emerging infectious diseases and xenotransplantation

A total of 335 infectious diseases was reported in the global human population between 1940 and 2004, the majority of which were caused by zoonotic pathogens [ 1 ]. Although viral pathogens constitute only 25%, some have spread worldwide with most starting from Central Africa. These include human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) causing acquired immunodeficiency syndromes (AIDS), chikungunya virus and West Nile virus, which also cause severe diseases in humans. HIV‐1 and HIV‐2, for example, are the result of trans‐species transmission from non‐human primates [ 2 ] to humans sometime in the last century. The spread of two henipaviruses causing fatal diseases in horses, pigs and humans has been observed in Asia and Australia, and although these viruses represent transspecies transmissions from bats, secondary transmissions from pigs to humans have also occurred. These and many other examples of emerging infectious diseases call for strong safety considerations in the field of xenotransplantation. Whereas known viruses can easily be eliminated from donor pigs, strategies should be developed to detect new zoonotic pathogens. In addition, all pigs carry porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) in their genome. Two of these, PERV‐A and PERV‐B, as wells as recombinant PERV‐A/C are able to infect human cells. The greatest threat appears to come from the recombinant PERV‐A/C viruses as they appear to have an increased infectivity [ 3 , 4 ]. An increase in PERV expression was not observed in multitransgenic pigs expressing DAF, TRAIL and HLAE, generated to prevent immune rejection [ 5 ]. Our laboratory has developed a variety of strategies to prevent PERV transmission following xenotransplantation: (i) selection of animals that do not harbour PERV‐C genomes in order to prevent recombination, (ii) selection of PERV‐A and PERV‐B low‐producers [ 6 ], (iii) development of an antiviral vaccine to protect xenotransplant recipients [ 7 ] and (iv) generation of transgenic pigs in which PERV expression is inhibited via RNA interference. Inhibition of PERV expression using either synthetic small interfering (si) RNA or short hairpin (sh) RNA was demonstrated in PERV infected human cells [ 8 ], in primary pig cells [ 9 ] and in all transgenic piglets born [ 10 ]. A second generation of pigs expressing PERV‐specific siRNA is now under study and experiments have been started to introduce multiple shRNA. Supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, DE729/4.     

Absence of PERV specific humoral immune response in baboons after transplantation of porcine cells or organs

Xenotransplantation of pig organs seems a promising way of overcoming the prevailing limitation on allotransplantation due to donor numbers. However, as porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) can infect human cells in vitro, there is substantial concern regarding the risk of a PERV infection in xenogeneic transplant recipients. Cultured porcine endothelial cells, stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and pancreatic islet cells can release PERV infectious for human cells in vitro, but it is currently unknown whether PERV is released in vivo, whether these viral particles can infect the transplant recipient, and whether they are pathogenic. In a retrospective study 15 immunosuppressed baboons were tested for a specific immune response against PERV after transplantation of porcine endothelial cells, mononuclear blood cells, and lungs. Anti-PERV antibody expression was analyzed with peptide-based, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays and highly sensitive Western Blot assays. This xenotransplantation study using nonhuman primates found no evidence of PERV specific humoral immune response. Our data suggest that no productive PERV infection and no continuous PERV release takes place in the nonhuman primates analyzed in this study.     

Xenotransplantation: Infectious Risk Revisited

Xenotransplantation is a possible solution for the shortage of tissues for human transplantation. Multiple hurdles exist to clinical xenotransplantation, including immunologic barriers, metabolic differences between pigs--the source species most commonly considered--and humans, and ethical concerns. Since clinical trials were first proposed almost 10 years ago, the degree of risk for infection transmitted from the xenograft donor to the recipient has been extensively investigated. A number of potential viral pathogens have been identified including porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV), and porcine lymphotropic herpesvirus (PLHV). Sensitive diagnostic assays have been developed for each virus. Human-tropic PERV are exogenous recombinants between PERV-A and PERV-C sequences and are present in only a subset of swine. Porcine cytomegalovirus can be excluded from herds of source animals by early weaning of piglets. In contrast, the risks associated with PLHV remain undefined. Microbiologic studies and assays for potential xenogeneic pathogens have furthered understanding of risks associated with xenotransplantation. Thus far, clinical xenotransplantation of pig tissues has not resulted in transmission of viral infection to humans; significant risks for disease transmission from swine to humans have not been confirmed. If immunologic hurdles can be overcome, it is reasonable to initiate carefully monitored clinical trials.     

Sensitive and specific immunological detection methods for porcine endogenous retroviruses applicable to experimental and clinical xenotransplantation

Abstract: The use of organs from transgenic pigs for xenotransplantation may be associated with the risk of transmission of microorganisms, especially when the transgenic pigs express human proteins influencing complement activation. The porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) are of particular concern as they can infect human cells in vitro. However, it is unknown whether PERVs can infect transplant recipients in vivo and, if so, whether they are pathogenic. It is therefore essential for experimental and clinical xenotransplantation procedures that specific and sensitive screening methods for PERVs are established. We developed Western blot and enzyme-linked immunosorbant assays (ELISA) based on purified PERVs produced by pig and human cells or recombinant viral protein and synthetic peptides corresponding to PERVs' transmembrane envelope protein, respectively. PERV-specific anti-sera generated against purified virus particles, purified viral proteins and synthetic peptides served as positive controls. Both assays were used for screening the sera of healthy blood donors, pregnant women, patients treated with pig tissues, and butchers with extensive contact to living porcine material to detect antibodies against PERV. None of the individuals showed an antibody pattern characteristic for retroviral infections. Some individuals had antibodies reactive against the major capsid protein p27, against smaller viral proteins of the group specific antigen (Gag) in Western blot assays, or against peptides in the ELISA, probably due to cross-reactivity. Here, we present specific and highly sensitive screening methods applicable for future xenotransplantation procedures, but using these methods we found no evidence of PERV-infection among humans potentially at risk.     

Is porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) transmission still relevant?

Xenotransplantation using porcine cells or organs may be associated with the risk of transmission of zoonotic microorganisms. Porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERVs) pose a potentially high risk because they are integrated into the genome of all pigs and PERV-A and PERV-B at least, which are present in all pigs, can infect human cells. However, PERV transmission could not be demonstrated in the first recipients of clinical xenotransplantation or after numerous experimental pig-to-non-human primate transplantations. In addition, inoculation of immunosuppressed small animals and non-human primates failed to result in demonstrable PERV infection. Nevertheless, strategies to reduce the possible danger of PERV transmission to humans, however low, could be of benefit for the large-scale clinical use of porcine xenotransplants. One strategy is to select pigs free of PERV-C, thereby preventing recombination with PERV-A. A second strategy involves the selection of animals that express only very low levels of PERV-A and PERV-B. To this end, sensitive and specific methods have been developed to allow the distribution and expression of PERV to be analyzed. A third strategy is to develop a vaccine capable of protecting against PERV transmission. Finally, a fourth strategy is based on the inhibition of PERV expression by RNA interference. Using PERV-specific short hairpin RNA (shRNA) and retroviral vectors, inhibition of PERV expression in primary pig cells was demonstrated and transgenic pigs were generated that show reduced PERV expression in all tissues analyzed. Intensive work is required to improve and to combine these strategies to further decrease the putative risk of PERV transmission following xenotransplantation.     

No transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus after transplantation of adult porcine islets into diabetic nude mice and immunosuppressed rats

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate whether transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) occurs in a model of diabetes reversal by the xenotransplantation of adult porcine islets (APIs) into immunoincompetent diabetic rodents. METHODS: Black-6 nu/nu mice and Lewis rats were immunosuppressed with cyclosporin A (CsA) and FTY 720, and rendered diabetic with streptozotocin. Purified APIs were transplanted into the renal subcapsular space; 5,000 islet equivalents (IEQs) were used in the nude mice (n = 4) and 40,000 IEQs in the rats (n = 4). The nude mice were sacrificed at 75 days after transplantation. In order to confirm chronic xenograft function, the graft-bearing kidney was removed prior to sacrifice. The rats were followed until xenograft rejection, at which time they were sacrificed. Immediately after sacrifice, tissue samples (liver, spleen, and small intestine) were taken for analysis. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to assess evidence of PERV transmission, and porcine cell chimerism. RESULTS: All animals became normoglycemic within 48 h of transplantation. The nude mice remained normoglycemic during the 75-day study period, with removal of the graft-bearing kidney resulting in prompt hyperglycemia. The rats remained normoglycemic until xenograft rejection, which occurred at 66 +/- 28 days. Despite the evidence of porcine cell microchimerism in recipients, real-time PCR detected no evidence of PERV transmission in any of the tissue specimens tested. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of PERV transmission following transplantation of pig islets into diabetic nude mice and immunosuppressed rats.     

APOBEC3 proteins and porcine endogenous retroviruses

Xenotransplantation of porcine cells, tissues, and organs offers a solution to overcome the shortage of human donor materials. In addition to the immunological and physiological barriers, the existence of numerous porcine microorganisms including viruses poses a risk for xenozoonosis. Three classes of functional gamma-type porcine endogenous retroviruses (PERV) have been identified, whereby functional polytropic PERV-A and PERV-B infect human embryonic kidney (HEK 293) and other cell lines in vitro. In the course of risk assessment for xenotransplantation the capacity of human cells to counteract PERV infections should be analyzed. Primates and other mammals display different means of protection against viral infections. APOBEC3 proteins which are cytidine deaminases and a part of the intrinsic immunity mediate potent activity against a wide range of retroviruses including murine leukemia viruses (MLV). As PERV and MLV belong to the same genus, we raised the question as to whether PERV is affected by APOBEC3 proteins. Initial data indicate that human and porcine cytidine deaminases inhibit PERV replication, thereby possibly reducing the risk for infection of human cells by PERV as a consequence of pig-to-human xenotransplantation.