Objectives: One of the proposed roles of progesterone is to prevent maternal immunological destruction of the allogeneic conceptus. Here, it was demonstrated that progesterone allows survival of a xenotransplant placed in the uterine lumen. Methods: Ovariectomized ewes, surgically prepared to have ligatures around each uterine horn, were given daily subcutaneous injections of 50 mg progesterone or vehicle (sesame oil). After 30 days of treatment, mouse hybridoma cells were transplanted to one ligated uterine horn and phosphate-buffered saline was injected into the other horn. The uterus was flushed after an additional 14 days of treatment and hybridoma cells were identified by immunofluorescence. Results: Overall, hybridoma cells were recovered from 4 of 5 progesterone-treated ewes and 1 of 5 vehicle-treated ewes. Immunohistochemical analysis of intercaruncular endometrium using antibodies towards CD8, γδ, and CD45R lymphocyte markers revealed that local presence of hybridoma cells caused a significant increase in CD8+ cells in all tissue compartments. While not significant, the numbers of CD8+ cells in the luminal and glandular epithelium were lower for progesterone-treated ewes. Progesterone tended to increase γδ T cell numbers in the glandular epithelium. Conclusions: Results demonstrate that xenograft rejection in the uterus is associated with an increase in CD8+ cells in the endometrium and that progesterone can inhibit uterine tissue graft rejection responses sufficiently to allow survival or delay rejection of xenograft tissue.

Keywords:
Progesterone, Xenotransplant, Hybridoma cells, Uterine tissue graft
1.
Casida LE, Warwick EJ: The necessity of the corpus luteum for maintenance of pregnancy in the ewe. J Anim Sci 1945;4:34–36.
2.
Watnick AS, Russo RA: Survival of skin homografts in uteri of pregnant and progesterone-estrogen treated rats. Proc Soc Exp Med 1968;128:1–4.
3.
Hansen PJ, Bazer FW, Segerson EC: Skin graft survival in the uterine lumen of ewes treated with progesterone. Am J Reprod Immunol Microbiol 1986;12:48–54.
4.
Meinecke-Tillmann S, Meinecke B: Experimental chimaeras – Removal of reproductive barrier between sheep and goat. Nature 1984;307:637–638.
5.
Allen WR, Skidmore JA, Stewart F, Antczak DF: Effects of fetal genotype and uterine environment on placental development in equids. J Reprod Fertil 1993;97:55–60.
6.
Staples LD, Binns RM, Heap RB: Influence of certain steroids on lymphocyte transformation in sheep and goats studied in vitro. J Endocrinol 1983;98:55–69.
7.
Low BG, Hansen PJ: Immunosuppressive actions of steroids and prostaglandins secreted by the placenta and uterus of the cow and sheep. Am J Reprod Immunol Microbiol 1988;18:71–75.
8.
Hansen PJ, Liu W-J: Biology of progesterone-induced uterine serpins. Adv Exp Med Biol 1997;425:143–154.
9.
Moriyama I, Sugawa T: Progesterone facilitates implantation of xenogeneic cultured cells in hamster uterus. Nature New Biol 1972;236:150–152.
10.
Rowson LEA, Lamming GE, Fry RM: The relationship between ovarian hormones and uterine infection Vet Rec 1953;65:335–340.
11.
Washburn SM, Klesius PH, Ganjam UK, Brown BG: Effect of estrogen and progesterone on the phagocytic response of ovariectomized mares infected in utero with β-hemolytic streptococci. Am J Vet Res 1982;43:1367–1370.
12.
Gottshall SL, Hansen PJ: Regulation of leucocyte subpopulations in the sheep endometrium by progesterone. Immunology 1992;76:636–641.
13.
Meeusen E, Fox A, Brandon M, Lee CS: Activation of uterine intraepithelial γδ T cell receptor-positive lymphocytes during pregnancy. Eur J Immunol 1993;23:1112–1117.
14.
Suzuki T, Hiromatsu K, Ando Y, Okamoto T, Tomoda Y, Yoshikai Y: Regulatory role of γδ T cells in uterine intraepithelial lymphocytes in maternal antifetal immune response. J Immunol 1995;154:4476–4484.
15.
Clark DA, Merali FS, Hoskin DW, Steel-Norwood D, Arck PC, Croituro K, Murgita RA, Hirte H: Decidua-associated suppressor cells in abortion-prone DBA/2-mated CBA/J mice that release bioactive transforming growth factor β2-related immunosuppressive molecules express a bone marrow-derived natural suppressor cell marker and γδ T-cell receptor. Biol Reprod 1997;56:1351–1360.
16.
Anderson JV, Li QB, Haskell DW, Guy CL: Structural organization of the spinach endoplasmic reticulum-luminal 70-kiladalton heat-shock cognate gene and expression of 70-kilodalton heat-shock genes during cold acclimation. Plant Physiol 1994;104:1359–1370.
17.
Foote WD, Gooch LD, Pope AL, Casida LE: The maintenance of early pregnancy in the ovariectomized ewe by injection of ovarian hormones. J Anim Sci 1957;16:986–989.
18.
Statistical Analysis System: A User’s Guide, ed 4, vers 6. Cary, SAS Institute, 1989.
19.
Bumgardner GL, Li J, Prologo JD, Heininger M, Orosz CG: Patterns of immune responses evoked by allogeneic hepatocytes: Evidence for independent co-dominant roles for CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses in acute rejection. Transplantation 1999;68:555–562.
20.
Yoshimura R, Chargui J, Aitouche A, Veyron P, Touraine JL: Induction of hyperacute rejection of skin allografts by CD8+ lymphocytes. Transplantation 2000;69:1452–1457.
21.
Haas W, Pereira P, Tonegawa S: Gamma/delta cells. Annu Rev Immunol 1993;11:637–685.
22.
Coelho V, Moliterno R, Higuchi ML, Guilherme L, Cunha-Neto E, Fiorelli AI, Kalil J: γδ T cells play no major role in human heart allograft rejection. Transplantation 1995;60:980–984.
23.
Kirk AD, Ibrahim S, Dawson DV, Sanfilippo F, Finn OJ: Characterization of T cells expressing the γ/δ antigen receptor in human renal allografts. Hum Immunol 1993;36:11–19.
24.
Gorczynski RM, Cohen Z, Leung Y, Chen Z: γ-δ TCR+ hybridomas derived from mice preimmunized via the portal vein adoptively transfer increased skin allograft survival in vivo. J Immunol 1996;157:574–581.
25.
Peltier MR, Liu W-J, Hansen PJ: Regulation of lymphocyte proliferation by uterine serpin: Interleukin-2 mRNA production, CD25 expression and responsiveness to interleukin-2. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 2000;223:75–81.
26.
Lee CS, Meeusen E, Gogolin-Ewens K, Brandon MR: Quantitative and qualitative changes in the intraepithelial lymphocyte population in the uterus of nonpregnant and pregnant sheep. Am J Reprod Immunol 1992;28:90–96.
27.
Stephenson DC, Hansen PJ: Induction by progesterone of immunosuppressive activity in uterine secretions of ovariectomized ewes. Endocrinology 1990;126:3168–3178.
28.
Monterroso VH, Hansen PJ: Regulation of bovine and ovine lymphocyte proliferation by progesterone: Modulation by steroid receptor antagonists and physiological status. Acta Endocrinol 1993;129:532–535.
29.
Gottshall SL, Hansen PJ: Improvement of mitogen-induced lymphocyte proliferation in sheep. J Vet Med 1994;41:541–548.
30.
Hansen PJ, Skopets B: Temporal relationship between progesterone and uterine lymphocyte-inhibitory activity in ewes. Vet Rec 1992;131:371–372.
31.
Moffatt J, Bazer FW, Hansen PJ, Chun PW, Roberts RM: Purification, secretion and immunocytochemical localization of the uterine milk proteins, major progesterone-induced proteins in uterine secretions of the sheep. Biol Reprod 1987;36:419–430.
32.
Leslie MV, Hansen PJ: Progesterone-regulated secretion of the serpin-like proteins of the ovine and bovine uterus. Steroids 1991;56:589–597.
© 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
2002
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.