# Lecture 9: Transplantation Immunology
## Unit 2.7: Immunology
---
## Learning Objectives
By the end of this lecture, students will be able to:
1. Describe the immunological basis of transplant rejection
2. Explain HLA matching and crossmatching
3. Describe the types of allograft rejection
4. Explain graft-versus-host disease
5. Describe immunosuppressive strategies in transplantation
6. Explain tolerance induction and future directions
---
## Lecture Outline
### I. Transplantation Overview
Transplantation represents one of medicine's most remarkable achievements, offering life-saving treatment for end-stage organ failure through the transfer of tissues or organs between individuals. The terminology of transplantation classifies grafts based on the genetic relationship between donor and recipient. An autograft involves transfer of tissue within the same individual, such as skin grafting from one body site to another or coronary artery bypass using the patient's own saphenous vein; these grafts face no immunological barrier. Isografts or syngeneic grafts occur between genetically identical individuals, specifically identical twins, and similarly require no immunosuppression. Allografts, the most common clinical scenario, involve transplantation between genetically different individuals of the same species; these encounter immune recognition and rejection without immunosuppressive therapy. Xenografts, transferred between different species, face the most formidable immunological barriers, though advances in genetic engineering of pig organs are bringing xenotransplantation closer to clinical reality.
The modern era of transplantation has achieved remarkable success, with one-year graft survival rates exceeding 95% for kidney transplants, 90% for liver transplants, and 85% for heart and lung transplants. Kidney transplantation remains the most common solid organ transplant, offering superior quality of life and survival compared to dialysis for patients with end-stage renal disease. Liver transplantation provides definitive treatment for cirrhosis, acute liver failure, and certain metabolic diseases and hepatocellular carcinoma. Heart transplantation serves patients with end-stage heart failure refractory to medical management, while lung transplantation addresses end-stage pulmonary diseases including COPD, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and cystic fibrosis. Pancreas and islet cell transplantation can achieve insulin independence in selected patients with type 1 diabetes, and intestinal transplantation serves patients with intestinal failure who cannot be maintained on parenteral nutrition.
Despite these successes, transplantation confronts several fundamental barriers that limit its broader application. The primary immunological barrier is HLA mismatch between donor and recipient, as the human leukocyte antigens represent the most polymorphic genes in the human genome and serve as the principal targets of alloimmune recognition. ABO blood group incompatibility presents an immediate barrier due to preformed natural antibodies that cause hyperacute rejection. Beyond immunological concerns, a critical shortage of donor organs means that many patients die awaiting transplantation; in the United States alone, over 100,000 patients are on the waiting list for kidney transplants while only approximately 25,000 kidney transplants are performed annually. The requirement for lifelong immunosuppression exposes recipients to increased risks of infection, malignancy, cardiovascular disease, and drug-specific toxicities that impact long-term outcomes.
The central immunological challenge in transplantation is managing the alloimmune response while preserving protective immunity against pathogens. Allorecognition refers to the immune system's ability to recognize foreign MHC molecules on donor cells as non-self, triggering a vigorous T cell response. This response is unusually potent because of the high frequency of T cells capable of recognizing allogeneic MHC molecules, estimated at 1-10% of the T cell repertoire compared to less than 0.001% for any given foreign peptide antigen. The goal of transplant immunology is to prevent rejection, the destruction of the graft by the recipient's immune system, while maintaining sufficient immune competence to defend against infections and malignancies. Achieving this balance requires careful immunosuppressive management, understanding the mechanisms of rejection, and ongoing research into tolerance induction strategies that might one day eliminate the need for chronic immunosuppression.
Panel A: Graft classification diagram showing four transplant types arranged by immunological barrier severity: autograft (same individual, no barrier), isograft (identical twin, no barrier), allograft (same species, moderate barrier with immunosuppression needed), and xenograft (different species, severe barrier), each illustrated with donor-recipient pair icons.
Panel B: Organ transplant success infographic showing survival rates for major solid organs (kidney 95%, liver 90%, heart 85%, lung 85%, pancreas 85%, intestine 75% at one year), with icons representing each organ and indication of transplant volume relative to waiting list size.
Panel C: Barriers to transplantation visualization showing HLA polymorphism (multiple allele variants creating donor-recipient mismatches), ABO incompatibility (blood type antibodies causing rejection), donor shortage (supply-demand gap with patients on waiting list), and immunosuppression consequences (infection and malignancy risks).
Panel D: Allorecognition concept illustration showing recipient T cell repertoire with 1-10% capable of recognizing donor MHC molecules, compared to less than 0.001% recognizing typical foreign antigen, explaining the potent alloimmune response and the challenge of balancing rejection prevention with infection defense.
---
### II. Allorecognition
The direct pathway of allorecognition involves recipient T cells recognizing intact donor MHC molecules on the surface of donor-derived antigen-presenting cells. When an organ is transplanted, it carries passenger leukocytes, particularly dendritic cells, that migrate from the graft to recipient lymphoid tissues. These donor APCs present intact donor MHC molecules (complexed with peptides) to recipient T cells. Remarkably, recipient T cells can recognize these foreign MHC molecules directly, without requiring processing and presentation by recipient APCs. This direct recognition reflects the structural similarity between self MHC presenting foreign peptide (the normal scenario for T cell activation) and foreign MHC presenting any peptide. The direct pathway generates a vigorous response because of the high precursor frequency of alloreactive T cells and the abundance of target MHC molecules on every donor cell. This pathway predominates early after transplantation when donor APCs are most abundant, contributing primarily to acute rejection.
The indirect pathway of allorecognition more closely resembles the conventional mechanism of antigen recognition, involving processing and presentation of donor antigens by recipient APCs. In this pathway, recipient dendritic cells engulf donor cells, cellular debris, or shed proteins from the graft, process these antigens through the endocytic pathway, and present donor-derived peptides on recipient MHC class II molecules to recipient CD4+ T cells. The major antigens presented through this pathway are peptides derived from donor MHC molecules, which differ from recipient MHC by multiple amino acids and are therefore highly immunogenic. The indirect pathway becomes increasingly important over time as donor passenger leukocytes are depleted, and it is thought to play a critical role in chronic rejection and the development of donor-specific antibodies. Targeting this pathway may be essential for achieving long-term graft survival.
The semidirect pathway represents a more recently characterized mechanism whereby intact donor MHC molecules are transferred to recipient APCs through direct cell contact, membrane exchange, or exosome transfer. These recipient APCs then display both recipient and donor MHC molecules on their surface, potentially activating T cells through both direct (recognition of transferred donor MHC) and indirect (presentation of processed donor peptides) mechanisms simultaneously. This pathway may explain certain aspects of alloimmunity that are not fully accounted for by the classical direct and indirect pathways. The relative contribution of the semidirect pathway to clinical rejection remains an area of active investigation, but it represents an additional layer of complexity in allorecognition that may have therapeutic implications.
Beyond the major histocompatibility complex, minor histocompatibility antigens can trigger rejection even when MHC molecules are perfectly matched between donor and recipient. These antigens are polymorphic peptides derived from normal cellular proteins that differ between individuals due to genetic variation. When presented on MHC molecules, these polymorphic peptides can be recognized as foreign by T cells. The H-Y antigen, encoded on the Y chromosome and thus present only in males, represents a clinically important minor histocompatibility antigen; female-to-male transplants may encounter rejection mediated by T cells recognizing H-Y peptides. Minor histocompatibility antigens are particularly important in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, where even HLA-matched transplants can result in graft-versus-host disease driven by T cell recognition of recipient minor antigens. The large number of potential minor antigens, estimated at hundreds, means that complete matching is essentially impossible outside identical twins.
Panel A: Direct allorecognition pathway illustration showing donor dendritic cell (passenger leukocyte) migrating from transplanted organ to recipient lymph node, presenting intact donor MHC molecules to recipient CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, with emphasis on the high frequency (1-10%) of alloreactive T cells in the repertoire and the timing (early post-transplant).
Panel B: Indirect allorecognition pathway showing recipient dendritic cell engulfing donor cell debris, processing donor proteins including shed MHC molecules, presenting donor-derived peptides on recipient MHC class II to recipient CD4+ T cells, with notation of later timing and importance in chronic rejection and antibody development.
Panel C: Semidirect pathway diagram depicting cell membrane exchange or exosome transfer between donor and recipient cells, resulting in recipient APC displaying both recipient MHC and acquired intact donor MHC molecules, enabling simultaneous direct and indirect T cell activation.
Panel D: Minor histocompatibility antigen concept showing MHC-matched donor and recipient differing at polymorphic non-MHC genes, resulting in peptide variants (illustrated as H-Y antigen) that are presented on MHC and recognized as foreign by recipient T cells, explaining rejection despite MHC matching.
---
### III. HLA Matching and Crossmatching
HLA typing has evolved from serological methods to sophisticated molecular techniques that provide high-resolution characterization of an individual's HLA genotype. Historical serological typing used panels of antisera to identify HLA antigens based on complement-mediated lymphocyte lysis, but this method could not distinguish between closely related alleles. Modern molecular typing employs PCR-based methods including sequence-specific primers (SSP) that amplify only when a specific allele is present, and sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes (SSO) that hybridize to amplified HLA gene segments. Next-generation sequencing now enables complete HLA gene sequencing for unambiguous allele assignment at the highest resolution. The HLA nomenclature system reflects this increasing resolution, with designations like HLA-A*02:01:01:01 specifying the gene, allele group, specific protein, synonymous variation, and non-coding variation. For most solid organ transplantation, matching focuses on HLA-A, -B, -C (class I) and HLA-DR, -DQ (class II) loci.
The importance of HLA matching varies significantly among different organ types. For kidney transplantation, HLA matching has substantial impact on graft survival, with zero-antigen mismatched (fully matched) transplants showing superior outcomes compared to mismatched grafts, particularly affecting long-term survival and development of chronic rejection. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) allocation algorithm prioritizes zero-mismatch kidney transplants nationally. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation demands the most stringent matching, ideally 10/10 allele-level matches at HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, and -DQB1, as mismatches significantly increase risks of both graft failure and severe graft-versus-host disease. In contrast, liver transplantation shows less dependence on HLA matching, partly due to the organ's immunological privilege and regenerative capacity; allocation prioritizes medical urgency over HLA matching. Heart and lung transplantation have limited ability to match due to geographic constraints and organ ischemia time limits.
The crossmatch test is performed immediately before transplantation to detect preformed donor-specific antibodies in the recipient's serum that could cause immediate graft destruction. The complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) crossmatch mixes recipient serum with donor lymphocytes; if donor-specific antibodies are present, they bind to donor cells and activate complement, causing cell death that can be detected microscopically with vital dyes. A positive CDC crossmatch indicates a high risk of hyperacute rejection and is generally considered an absolute contraindication to transplantation. The flow cytometric crossmatch offers greater sensitivity by detecting antibody binding to donor cells using fluorescently labeled anti-human immunoglobulin, identifying lower levels of donor-specific antibodies that might not activate complement but still increase rejection risk. Virtual crossmatching uses the recipient's known HLA antibody specificities (from solid-phase assays) to predict compatibility with a potential donor's HLA type, enabling preliminary assessment before physical crossmatching.
Panel reactive antibody (PRA) testing quantifies a recipient's level of HLA sensitization and the likelihood of finding a compatible donor. Sensitization occurs through previous exposure to foreign HLA antigens via pregnancy, blood transfusions, or prior transplants, stimulating production of HLA antibodies. The calculated PRA (cPRA) represents the percentage of the potential donor population against which the recipient has antibodies, determined by testing the recipient's serum against a panel representing the HLA antigen frequency in the general population. A patient with cPRA of 95% has antibodies against HLA antigens present in 95% of potential donors, severely limiting compatibility. Highly sensitized patients face prolonged waiting times and may require desensitization protocols involving plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, and/or anti-CD20 therapy to reduce antibody levels before transplantation. Kidney allocation systems provide priority points for highly sensitized patients to help offset their disadvantage in finding compatible donors.
Panel A: HLA typing evolution diagram showing progression from serological methods (antibody-based lymphocyte killing assay) to PCR-based molecular methods (SSP and SSO) to next-generation sequencing, with increasing resolution depicted as moving from broad antigen groups to specific four-field allele designations (e.g., A*02:01:01:01).
Panel B: HLA matching importance across organ types showing spectrum from strict (bone marrow requiring 10/10 match with severe GVHD risk if mismatched) to moderate (kidney with survival benefit from matching) to less critical (liver with urgency-based allocation), with bar graphs depicting impact of mismatching on outcomes for each organ.
Panel C: Crossmatch testing comparison showing CDC crossmatch (serum + donor cells + complement leads to cell death if antibodies present, detected by dye uptake) versus flow cytometric crossmatch (antibody binding detected by fluorescent anti-human Ig, more sensitive), and virtual crossmatch (computer comparison of known recipient antibodies against donor HLA type).
Panel D: Panel reactive antibody concept illustration showing recipient serum tested against representative HLA panel, with calculation of cPRA percentage based on reactive specificities, graph showing how high cPRA (e.g., 95%) dramatically reduces compatible donor pool, and desensitization strategy overview for highly sensitized patients.
---
### IV. Types of Rejection
Hyperacute rejection represents the most rapid and devastating form of graft loss, occurring within minutes to hours of transplantation due to preformed antibodies in the recipient's circulation. When preformed anti-donor antibodies bind to vascular endothelium of the transplanted organ, they immediately activate the complement cascade, causing widespread endothelial injury, platelet aggregation, and intravascular thrombosis. The organ becomes mottled, cyanotic, and ceases to function, typically requiring immediate surgical removal. The antibodies responsible are usually anti-ABO blood group antibodies (when ABO-incompatible transplantation is inadvertently performed) or anti-HLA antibodies from prior sensitization. Modern pretransplant testing, including mandatory ABO compatibility verification and crossmatching, has made hyperacute rejection rare in contemporary practice. However, its mechanism illustrates the power of preformed antibodies to cause immediate graft destruction and emphasizes the importance of pretransplant immunological assessment.
Acute rejection typically develops within days to months after transplantation, most commonly in the first three months, and represents activation of the adaptive immune response against the allograft. Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is mediated primarily by T lymphocytes that infiltrate the graft parenchyma and directly attack graft cells. Pathologically, ACR shows dense lymphocytic infiltrates with evidence of tissue damage: in kidney transplants, lymphocytes invade tubular epithelium (tubulitis); in liver transplants, they attack bile ducts and hepatocytes; in heart transplants, myocyte necrosis occurs. Acute antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) occurs when donor-specific antibodies develop or increase after transplantation, binding to graft endothelium and causing complement-mediated injury. AMR is characterized pathologically by microvascular inflammation, C4d complement deposition (detected by immunofluorescence), and the presence of circulating donor-specific antibodies. Many rejection episodes have features of both cellular and antibody-mediated components, requiring multimodal treatment.
Chronic rejection develops months to years after transplantation and remains the leading cause of late graft loss. Unlike acute rejection, chronic rejection progresses insidiously with gradual decline in graft function and is characterized pathologically by fibrosis and vascular changes rather than cellular infiltration. In kidney allografts, chronic rejection manifests as interstitial fibrosis, tubular atrophy, and transplant glomerulopathy with duplication of glomerular basement membranes. In cardiac allografts, cardiac allograft vasculopathy causes diffuse intimal thickening and accelerated coronary artery disease. The pathogenesis involves both immunological factors, particularly ongoing indirect pathway allorecognition and antibody-mediated injury, and non-immunological factors including ischemia-reperfusion injury, calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Treatment options for chronic rejection are limited; the primary approach is optimizing immunosuppression and managing cardiovascular risk factors, with retransplantation often becoming necessary.
The Banff classification provides standardized histopathological criteria for diagnosing and grading rejection in kidney and other allografts. Developed at international consensus conferences in Banff, Canada, this classification system enables consistent communication between pathologists and clinicians and allows comparison of outcomes across centers. For kidney allografts, the Banff classification defines borderline changes suspicious for rejection, and grades acute T cell-mediated rejection from 1A through 3 based on severity of tubulitis (grades 1A, 1B) and arteritis (grades 2A, 2B, 3). Antibody-mediated rejection is classified based on histological features (microvascular inflammation, transplant glomerulopathy), C4d staining, and serological evidence of donor-specific antibodies. The classification undergoes periodic updates as understanding of rejection mechanisms evolves, incorporating molecular diagnostics and refined definitions. Accurate histopathological diagnosis guides treatment selection, with cellular rejection typically responding to corticosteroid pulses while antibody-mediated rejection requires plasmapheresis, intravenous immunoglobulin, and B cell-directed therapies.
Panel A: Hyperacute rejection pathophysiology showing transplanted organ with preformed anti-donor antibodies immediately binding vascular endothelium, activating complement cascade (C1-C9), causing endothelial damage, platelet aggregation, and thrombosis throughout organ vasculature, resulting in mottled, cyanotic organ requiring removal within minutes to hours.
Panel B: Acute rejection comparison showing cellular rejection (T lymphocyte infiltration of graft parenchyma, tubulitis in kidney, bile duct damage in liver, myocyte necrosis in heart) versus antibody-mediated rejection (donor-specific antibodies binding endothelium, complement activation with C4d deposition, microvascular inflammation), with timeline indicating occurrence in first weeks to months.
Panel C: Chronic rejection progression diagram showing initial insult leading to ongoing immune injury (indirect pathway, DSA) combined with non-immune factors (CNI toxicity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia), resulting in fibrosis, tubular atrophy (kidney), transplant vasculopathy (heart), and progressive graft dysfunction over months to years with limited treatment options.
Panel D: Banff classification schema for kidney allograft showing histological images of borderline changes, T cell-mediated rejection grades (1A/1B with tubulitis, 2A/2B with arteritis, 3 with severe arteritis and necrosis), and antibody-mediated rejection criteria (microvascular inflammation, C4d positivity, DSA presence), used to guide treatment selection.
---
### V. Graft-Versus-Host Disease
Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) represents a unique immunological complication in which immunocompetent cells in the graft attack recipient tissues, essentially the reverse of conventional rejection. Three conditions must be met for GVHD to occur: the graft must contain immunocompetent cells, typically mature T lymphocytes; there must be histocompatibility differences between donor and recipient that the donor cells can recognize; and the recipient must be unable to reject the donor cells, usually due to immunocompromise. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the primary clinical setting for GVHD, as the graft necessarily contains donor T cells that reconstitute the recipient's immune system. GVHD can also rarely occur after solid organ transplantation, particularly liver and small bowel transplants that contain substantial lymphoid tissue, or following transfusion of non-irradiated blood products to immunocompromised recipients (transfusion-associated GVHD).
Acute GVHD classically develops within the first 100 days after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, though the current classification emphasizes clinical features rather than timing. The primary target organs are skin, liver, and gastrointestinal tract. Cutaneous GVHD presents as a maculopapular erythematous rash, often beginning on the palms, soles, and ears before becoming generalized; severe cases progress to bullae and epidermal necrosis resembling toxic epidermal necrolysis. Hepatic involvement manifests as cholestatic hepatitis with elevated bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, reflecting bile duct damage by donor T cells. Gastrointestinal GVHD causes secretory diarrhea that can become voluminous and bloody, along with nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramping from mucosal destruction. Acute GVHD is staged by the severity of involvement in each organ system and graded overall from I (mild) to IV (severe), with grade III-IV disease carrying substantial mortality.
Chronic GVHD typically develops after day 100 but may begin earlier or arise de novo without prior acute GVHD. Its clinical manifestations more closely resemble autoimmune connective tissue diseases than acute GVHD. Cutaneous involvement includes sclerodermatous changes with skin thickening, tightening, and joint contractures, as well as lichen planus-like papules and poikiloderma. Mucosal involvement causes sicca syndrome with dry eyes, dry mouth, and esophageal strictures. Pulmonary complications include bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome with progressive obstructive lung disease. Other manifestations include myositis, fasciitis, serous effusions, and cytopenias. Chronic GVHD significantly impacts quality of life and requires prolonged immunosuppressive therapy, with some patients remaining on treatment for years. The National Institutes of Health consensus criteria classify chronic GVHD as mild, moderate, or severe based on the number of organs involved and the functional impact.
Prevention and treatment of GVHD represents a major focus in HSCT management. Prophylaxis typically combines a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) with methotrexate, starting before transplant and continuing for months afterward. T cell depletion of the graft through ex vivo processing or in vivo anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) reduces GVHD incidence but increases relapse risk in malignant disease and delays immune reconstitution. First-line treatment for acute GVHD is high-dose corticosteroids; steroid-refractory disease is challenging and may require JAK inhibitors (ruxolitinib), extracorporeal photopheresis, or investigational agents. Chronic GVHD treatment also begins with corticosteroids, with various second-line options including ibrutinib, ruxolitinib, and photopheresis. Importantly, GVHD has a beneficial counterpart: graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) or graft-versus-tumor effect, whereby donor T cells recognize and eliminate residual malignant cells. Balancing GVHD prevention against preservation of GVL effect remains a fundamental challenge in allogeneic HSCT for hematological malignancies.
Panel A: GVHD requirements diagram showing three essential conditions: graft containing immunocompetent cells (donor T cells illustrated), histocompatibility differences (HLA or minor antigen mismatch between donor and recipient), and recipient immunocompromise (unable to reject donor cells), with arrows indicating donor T cells attacking recipient tissues.
Panel B: Acute GVHD target organs and manifestations showing skin (maculopapular rash on palms, soles, trunk), liver (cholestatic pattern with elevated bilirubin, bile duct damage histology), and GI tract (diarrhea, mucosal sloughing, crypt destruction), with staging and grading table showing organ-specific and overall severity classification.
Panel C: Chronic GVHD manifestations comparison to autoimmune diseases showing sclerodermatous skin changes with contractures, sicca syndrome affecting eyes and mouth, bronchiolitis obliterans lung involvement, and lichen planus-like oral lesions, with NIH severity classification based on organ number and functional impact.
Panel D: GVHD prevention and treatment strategy showing prophylaxis regimen (calcineurin inhibitor + methotrexate), T cell depletion options, first-line steroid treatment, second-line agents (ruxolitinib, photopheresis), and the GVL balance concept showing donor T cells attacking both host tissues (harmful GVHD) and residual malignant cells (beneficial GVL).
---
### VI. Immunosuppressive Agents - Induction
Induction therapy refers to the intensive immunosuppression administered at the time of transplantation to prevent early acute rejection when the alloimmune response is most vigorous. The rationale for induction is that the perioperative period represents a critical window of heightened immunological risk: ischemia-reperfusion injury causes inflammation and upregulates donor antigen expression; donor passenger leukocytes are abundant and activate recipient T cells through the direct pathway; and maintenance immunosuppression has not yet reached therapeutic levels. Induction regimens either deplete recipient lymphocytes or block their activation, allowing a more gradual introduction of maintenance therapy and potentially enabling lower long-term immunosuppression doses. The choice of induction agent depends on the recipient's immunological risk profile, the transplanted organ, and center-specific protocols.
Depleting induction agents physically eliminate T cells from the recipient's circulation, providing profound early immunosuppression. Anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG), most commonly rabbit-derived (Thymoglobulin), is a polyclonal antibody preparation containing antibodies against multiple T cell surface molecules. Administered intravenously over several days, ATG causes complement-mediated lysis and apoptosis of T cells, producing profound lymphopenia lasting weeks to months. ATG is preferred for high immunological risk recipients, including those with high PRA, repeat transplants, or African American recipients who have higher rejection rates. Alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) is a humanized monoclonal antibody against CD52, a glycoprotein expressed on T cells, B cells, monocytes, and natural killer cells. A single dose produces prolonged pan-lymphocyte depletion, enabling minimization or avoidance of other immunosuppressive agents. However, profound depletion increases risks of opportunistic infections and delayed immune reconstitution.
Non-depleting induction agents block T cell activation without eliminating the cells, providing immunosuppression while potentially preserving the T cell repertoire. Basiliximab (Simulect) is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against CD25, the alpha chain of the interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2Ralpha). CD25 is not expressed on resting T cells but is rapidly upregulated upon activation, making it a specific marker of recently activated T cells. By binding CD25, basiliximab prevents IL-2 signaling, blocking the autocrine loop that drives T cell proliferation. Basiliximab is administered as two doses, at transplant and day 4, and is well-tolerated with minimal adverse effects beyond those of standard immunosuppression. It is typically used in lower immunological risk recipients, including first transplants, low PRA, and living donor recipients with minimal cold ischemia. The historical agent OKT3, a murine monoclonal anti-CD3 antibody, was the first monoclonal antibody approved for clinical use but has been largely abandoned due to severe cytokine release syndrome and anti-mouse antibody formation.
Selection of induction therapy requires balancing the intensity of immunosuppression against its risks. High immunological risk recipients benefit from depleting induction with ATG or alemtuzumab to prevent early rejection that could sensitize them further and jeopardize long-term outcomes. However, these agents increase susceptibility to infections, particularly cytomegalovirus reactivation and opportunistic pathogens, and may slightly increase long-term malignancy risk. Low-risk recipients may do well with basiliximab or even no induction, avoiding the infectious and other complications of profound lymphocyte depletion. Organ-specific considerations also apply: kidney transplant programs have the most flexibility, as dialysis provides a backup if rejection occurs, while heart and lung programs often use more aggressive induction due to the consequences of rejection in organs without backup options. Induction represents the first component of a multi-layered immunosuppressive strategy that continues with maintenance therapy for the life of the graft.
Panel A: Induction therapy rationale diagram showing perioperative risk factors (ischemia-reperfusion injury, passenger leukocyte activation, unmeasurable maintenance levels) creating a window of heightened immunological risk in first days to weeks, with induction providing intensive early coverage while maintenance builds to therapeutic levels.
Panel B: Depleting agents mechanism comparison showing ATG (polyclonal antibodies binding multiple T cell epitopes causing complement-mediated lysis and apoptosis, producing weeks-long lymphopenia) versus alemtuzumab (anti-CD52 targeting T cells, B cells, monocytes, and NK cells, causing profound pan-lymphocyte depletion from single dose).
Panel C: Non-depleting induction illustration showing resting T cell without CD25 expression, then activated T cell upregulating CD25 (IL-2Ralpha), basiliximab binding CD25 to block IL-2 signaling and prevent T cell proliferation, contrasted with depleting agents that eliminate T cells entirely.
Panel D: Induction selection algorithm showing risk stratification (high risk: elevated PRA, repeat transplant, African American recipient leading to ATG or alemtuzumab; low risk: first transplant, low PRA, living donor leading to basiliximab or none), with consideration of infection and malignancy risks for each approach.
---
### VII. Maintenance Immunosuppression
Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) have formed the backbone of maintenance immunosuppression since cyclosporine revolutionized transplantation in the 1980s. Cyclosporine binds to cyclophilin, forming a complex that inhibits calcineurin, a phosphatase required for activation of the transcription factor NFAT (nuclear factor of activated T cells). Without calcineurin activity, NFAT cannot translocate to the nucleus to drive transcription of IL-2 and other cytokines essential for T cell activation and proliferation. Tacrolimus, introduced in the 1990s, works through the same mechanism but binds to a different cytoplasmic protein, FKBP12 (FK506-binding protein 12), before inhibiting calcineurin. Tacrolimus is approximately 100 times more potent than cyclosporine and has become the preferred CNI in most programs due to somewhat lower rejection rates. Both drugs require therapeutic drug monitoring because of narrow therapeutic windows and significant pharmacokinetic variability. Major adverse effects include nephrotoxicity (both acute and chronic), hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes (especially tacrolimus), neurotoxicity (tremor, headache), and hirsutism and gingival hyperplasia (cyclosporine).
Antiproliferative agents complement CNIs by blocking lymphocyte proliferation through different mechanisms. Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and mycophenolic acid inhibit inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase (IMPDH), the rate-limiting enzyme in de novo purine synthesis. Lymphocytes depend primarily on the de novo pathway for DNA synthesis, unlike other cells that can use salvage pathways, making mycophenolate relatively selective for lymphocytes. The drug effectively reduces rejection risk and has largely replaced azathioprine in modern protocols. Side effects include gastrointestinal toxicity (diarrhea, nausea), leukopenia, and teratogenicity requiring reliable contraception. Azathioprine, a purine antimetabolite that interferes with DNA synthesis more broadly, remains an alternative for patients intolerant of mycophenolate or during pregnancy when mycophenolate is contraindicated. Azathioprine carries risks of bone marrow suppression and hepatotoxicity, and patients with TPMT deficiency are at extreme risk for myelotoxicity.
Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, sirolimus and everolimus, provide an alternative or adjunct to CNI-based immunosuppression. These drugs bind to FKBP12 (like tacrolimus) but the resulting complex inhibits mTOR rather than calcineurin. mTOR inhibition blocks cytokine-driven T cell proliferation at a later stage than CNIs and also affects B cells, dendritic cells, and vascular smooth muscle. Because mTOR inhibitors spare calcineurin, they are not directly nephrotoxic and may be used in CNI-minimization or CNI-free protocols, particularly in recipients with chronic CNI nephrotoxicity. Additionally, mTOR inhibitors have antiproliferative effects on tumor cells and have shown benefit in recipients with or at high risk for certain malignancies. Significant adverse effects include hyperlipidemia, impaired wound healing (making them problematic early post-transplant), mouth ulcers, proteinuria, and pneumonitis.
Corticosteroids have been used in transplantation since its earliest days and remain a component of most immunosuppressive regimens, though there is a trend toward minimization or withdrawal. Steroids exert broad anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects through genomic mechanisms (binding glucocorticoid receptors to regulate gene transcription) and nongenomic effects. They suppress cytokine production, inhibit antigen presentation, and induce lymphocyte apoptosis. In transplantation, steroids are used for induction (high-dose methylprednisolone), maintenance (low-dose prednisone), and treatment of acute rejection (pulse doses). However, the long-term adverse effects of steroids are substantial: glucose intolerance and diabetes, osteoporosis, weight gain, hypertension, cataracts, skin fragility, and growth retardation in children. Many programs now pursue steroid withdrawal protocols, discontinuing maintenance steroids within the first year in selected low-risk patients, though this requires careful patient selection and increases rejection risk modestly.
Panel A: Calcineurin inhibitor mechanism diagram showing cyclosporine binding cyclophilin and tacrolimus binding FKBP12, both complexes inhibiting calcineurin phosphatase, preventing NFAT dephosphorylation and nuclear translocation, blocking IL-2 gene transcription, and stopping T cell activation and proliferation, with comparison table of adverse effects for each drug.
Panel B: Antiproliferative agent mechanisms showing mycophenolate inhibiting IMPDH in de novo purine synthesis pathway (lymphocyte-selective due to dependence on this pathway) versus azathioprine interfering with DNA synthesis more broadly through incorporation of fraudulent nucleotides, with side effect profiles for each.
Panel C: mTOR inhibitor pathway illustration showing sirolimus/everolimus binding FKBP12 (same protein as tacrolimus) but resulting complex inhibiting mTOR instead of calcineurin, blocking cytokine-driven proliferation at later stage, with benefits (no direct nephrotoxicity, antitumor effects) and drawbacks (poor wound healing, hyperlipidemia, proteinuria) indicated.
Panel D: Standard triple immunosuppression regimen diagram showing calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus) + antiproliferative (mycophenolate) + corticosteroid (prednisone) as typical combination, with steroid withdrawal protocol timeline for selected patients and notation of emerging CNI-sparing approaches using mTOR inhibitors or costimulation blockade (belatacept).
---
### VIII. Treatment of Rejection
Acute cellular rejection, characterized by T lymphocyte infiltration and parenchymal damage, is typically treated with high-dose corticosteroids as first-line therapy. Pulse methylprednisolone, usually 500-1000 mg intravenously for three consecutive days, rapidly suppresses the inflammatory response and reverses most mild to moderate cellular rejection episodes. The mechanism involves both genomic effects on cytokine production and immune cell function and acute nongenomic effects on cell membranes and signaling. Following pulse therapy, oral prednisone is continued at a higher maintenance dose with gradual taper. Response to steroids is generally assessed by improvement in graft function, with follow-up biopsy sometimes performed. Steroid-resistant cellular rejection, which fails to respond to pulse therapy, requires escalation to T cell-depleting antibodies, most commonly ATG. These cases may represent higher-grade rejection, delayed diagnosis, or intrinsically resistant immune responses, and carry worse long-term prognosis for graft survival.
Acute antibody-mediated rejection requires targeted removal of pathogenic antibodies and suppression of their production. Plasmapheresis or plasma exchange physically removes circulating donor-specific antibodies from the recipient's plasma, providing immediate reduction in antibody levels. However, antibodies are rapidly regenerated unless further measures are taken. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), typically administered after plasmapheresis sessions, provides immunomodulatory effects that may include Fc receptor blockade, anti-idiotype antibodies, and inhibition of complement. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, depletes B cells that would otherwise differentiate into antibody-producing plasma cells, though it does not affect existing plasma cells. For refractory cases, bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor that causes plasma cell apoptosis, directly targets the antibody-producing cells. Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody against C5 complement component, blocks the terminal complement pathway and may prevent complement-mediated injury even in the presence of antibodies. Treatment of AMR often combines multiple modalities and achieves variable success; chronic AMR remains particularly difficult to treat.
Chronic rejection presents the greatest therapeutic challenge because the pathological changes of fibrosis and vasculopathy are largely irreversible. When chronic rejection is identified, the focus shifts to slowing progression rather than reversal. Optimization of immunosuppression may include ensuring adequate drug levels, adding or substituting agents, and addressing non-adherence if present. Managing cardiovascular risk factors becomes paramount: controlling hypertension reduces hemodynamic injury to the graft vasculature; treating hyperlipidemia with statins may slow transplant vasculopathy; and achieving glycemic control prevents diabetic injury. If calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity is contributing to chronic allograft injury, conversion to an mTOR inhibitor-based regimen may slow progression. When chronic rejection advances to graft failure, options include return to dialysis for kidney recipients, retransplantation if the patient remains a candidate, or palliation for end-stage failure of heart, liver, or lung grafts.
Monitoring for rejection enables early detection and treatment before irreversible injury occurs. Serum creatinine remains the standard surveillance measure for kidney allograft function, with rising levels prompting further evaluation. Protocol biopsies, performed at predetermined intervals regardless of graft function, can detect subclinical rejection before functional decline and have been associated with improved outcomes in some studies. Donor-specific antibody (DSA) monitoring through periodic serum testing identifies de novo antibody development that increases AMR risk. Emerging molecular diagnostics offer promise for noninvasive rejection detection: donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) in the recipient's blood increases when graft cells are injured, and gene expression profiling of peripheral blood can identify rejection-associated patterns. These approaches may eventually enable more precise, personalized monitoring strategies that detect rejection earlier and reduce reliance on invasive biopsies.
Panel A: Acute cellular rejection treatment protocol showing pulse methylprednisolone (500-1000 mg IV daily x 3), followed by oral prednisone with taper, assessment of response by graft function improvement, and escalation pathway to ATG for steroid-resistant rejection, with timeline and response criteria indicated.
Panel B: Antibody-mediated rejection treatment modalities showing plasmapheresis removing circulating DSA, IVIG providing immunomodulation, rituximab depleting B cells (but not plasma cells), bortezomib causing plasma cell apoptosis, and eculizumab blocking complement, with combination protocol example and refractory case management.
Panel C: Chronic rejection management diagram showing limited reversal options with focus on slowing progression through immunosuppression optimization, cardiovascular risk modification (BP, lipids, glucose targets), CNI-sparing strategies, and endpoint management (dialysis, retransplantation, or palliation) when graft fails.
Panel D: Rejection monitoring strategy overview showing standard measures (creatinine trend, protocol biopsy samples, DSA screening timeline), and emerging tools (dd-cfDNA kinetics showing increased levels with rejection, gene expression profile patterns), with integrated monitoring algorithm for early detection.
---
### IX. Complications of Immunosuppression
Infectious complications represent the most common adverse consequence of immunosuppression and follow a predictable timeline after transplantation. In the first month, infections reflect surgical and nosocomial risks: wound infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and line-related bacteremia predominate, with organisms typical of hospitalized patients. Donor-derived infections may also present in this period. From one to six months post-transplant, the period of peak immunosuppression, opportunistic infections emerge as the major threat. Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important pathogen, capable of causing end-organ disease (pneumonitis, hepatitis, colitis, retinitis) and indirect effects including increased rejection and other infections. Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia, fungal infections (Aspergillus, Candida), and other herpesviruses also occur in this window. After six months, with reduced immunosuppression and immune reconstitution, community-acquired infections become more prominent, though late opportunistic infections still occur in patients requiring intensified immunosuppression for rejection.
Strategies to prevent and manage transplant-related infections have substantially improved outcomes. CMV prevention follows two approaches: universal prophylaxis with valganciclovir for high-risk patients (donor-positive, recipient-negative) for three to six months, or preemptive therapy guided by regular viral load monitoring and treatment upon detection of viremia. BK polyomavirus, which causes nephropathy and graft loss in kidney recipients, has no specific antiviral treatment; management involves immunosuppression reduction to allow immune control. Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia is prevented by trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis, typically continued for six to twelve months or longer. Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorder (PTLD), usually driven by Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), is monitored through EBV viral loads in high-risk (EBV-seronegative) recipients, with immunosuppression reduction and rituximab forming the primary treatment. Vaccination strategies for transplant recipients include completion of indicated vaccines before transplant and avoidance of live vaccines after transplant.
Malignancy represents a significant long-term complication of immunosuppression, reflecting reduced immune surveillance against virally-induced and other cancers. Skin cancers, particularly squamous cell carcinoma, occur at dramatically increased rates in transplant recipients, with risk 65-250 times higher than the general population; these cancers are more aggressive and more likely to metastasize, requiring vigilant dermatological surveillance and sun protection. PTLD occurs at 10-20 times the general population rate, ranging from benign-appearing polyclonal proliferations to aggressive lymphomas. Kaposi sarcoma, associated with human herpesvirus 8, is 500 times more common in transplant recipients. Other cancers, including renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and anogenital cancers (related to HPV), also occur at increased rates. Conversion from CNI-based to mTOR inhibitor-based immunosuppression may reduce cancer risk due to the antiproliferative properties of mTOR inhibitors, and this strategy is sometimes employed in recipients who develop malignancies.
Drug-specific toxicities contribute substantially to transplant recipient morbidity and require ongoing management. Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity causes both acute vasoconstriction and chronic tubulointerstitial fibrosis, potentially contributing to late graft loss in kidney recipients and causing renal dysfunction in non-renal organ recipients. New-onset diabetes after transplant (NODAT), particularly associated with tacrolimus and corticosteroids, affects 10-30% of previously non-diabetic recipients and increases cardiovascular risk. Cardiovascular disease, exacerbated by hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and direct immunosuppressive effects, is the leading cause of death in recipients with functioning grafts. Osteoporosis, driven by corticosteroids, CNIs, and immobility, increases fracture risk and requires monitoring and prophylaxis with calcium, vitamin D, and often bisphosphonates. Successful long-term management of transplant recipients requires attention to these complications alongside graft surveillance, representing a unique form of chronic disease management.
Panel A: Infection timeline diagram showing three phases post-transplant: first month (nosocomial and donor-derived infections including wound, UTI, line infections), 1-6 months (opportunistic infections: CMV, PCP, Aspergillus, BK virus), and after 6 months (community-acquired infections with persistent opportunistic risk if increased immunosuppression).
Panel B: CMV prevention strategies comparison showing universal prophylaxis approach (valganciclovir for 3-6 months in high-risk D+/R- recipients) versus preemptive approach (weekly viral load monitoring with treatment upon viremia detection), with BK virus management algorithm (no antiviral, reduce immunosuppression) shown alongside.
Panel C: Malignancy risk infographic showing relative risk increase for major cancers: skin SCC (65-250x), PTLD (10-20x), Kaposi sarcoma (500x), with contributing factors (reduced immune surveillance, oncogenic viruses) and mTOR inhibitor conversion strategy for reducing malignancy risk.
Panel D: Drug toxicity management table showing CNI nephrotoxicity (monitor levels, consider mTOR switch), NODAT (glucose monitoring, diabetes management, consider tacrolimus reduction), cardiovascular disease (aggressive risk factor control), and osteoporosis (calcium, vitamin D, bisphosphonates), with monitoring schedule and interventions for each.
---
### X. Tolerance and Future Directions
Operational tolerance, the holy grail of transplantation, refers to long-term graft survival in the absence of immunosuppression without evidence of chronic rejection. This state differs from true immunological tolerance in that it is defined functionally rather than mechanistically. Spontaneous operational tolerance occasionally develops in transplant recipients, most commonly in liver transplant recipients in whom 20-30% can eventually discontinue immunosuppression successfully. Isolated cases occur in kidney transplantation as well, though less frequently. Studies of these tolerant patients have revealed biomarkers including expanded populations of regulatory T cells, absence of donor-specific antibodies, and particular gene expression signatures. Understanding the mechanisms maintaining operational tolerance informs strategies to induce it deliberately. The potential benefits of achieving tolerance are transformative: eliminating immunosuppression-related infections, malignancies, and drug toxicities; reducing healthcare costs and treatment burden; and potentially improving long-term graft survival.
Several strategies to induce transplantation tolerance are under active investigation in clinical trials. Mixed chimerism involves combining organ transplantation with donor bone marrow infusion, creating a state where the recipient's hematopoietic system contains both donor and recipient cells. In this situation, donor-reactive T cells are deleted in the thymus through central tolerance mechanisms and suppressed peripherally through regulatory mechanisms. Clinical trials at several centers have achieved immunosuppression-free graft survival in kidney recipients receiving combined kidney and bone marrow transplants, though this approach requires conditioning regimens with significant toxicity. Regulatory T cell therapy involves expanding recipient or donor Tregs ex vivo and infusing them at transplant to establish dominant peripheral tolerance. Early clinical trials are testing the safety and efficacy of this approach. Costimulation blockade with belatacept (a CTLA-4-Ig fusion protein that blocks CD28-CD80/86 interaction) may promote tolerance by preventing full T cell activation, and clinical experience with belatacept shows preserved kidney function without CNI nephrotoxicity.
Xenotransplantation, the use of animal organs to address human organ shortage, has advanced dramatically with genetic engineering technologies. The primary immunological barrier to pig-to-human xenotransplantation is hyperacute rejection mediated by natural antibodies against the alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal) epitope expressed on pig cells. GTKO (galactosyltransferase knockout) pigs lacking this carbohydrate antigen have been developed and survive much longer in primate recipients. Additional genetic modifications include knockout of other carbohydrate antigens recognized by human natural antibodies, insertion of human complement regulatory proteins (CD46, CD55, CD59) to prevent complement-mediated injury, and insertion of human immunomodulatory genes. In 2022, the first genetically modified pig heart was transplanted into a human patient with end-stage heart disease who was not a candidate for conventional transplantation; the patient survived for two months before succumbing to multiple factors including a porcine virus. While challenges remain, including cellular rejection, molecular incompatibilities, and concerns about porcine endogenous retroviruses, xenotransplantation may eventually help address the donor shortage.
Future directions in transplantation extend beyond immunology to include organ engineering, precision medicine, and expanded donor pools. Decellularized organ scaffolds, stripped of cellular content while retaining extracellular matrix architecture, could potentially be repopulated with recipient cells to create bioengineered organs with no immunological barrier. Three-dimensional bioprinting is being explored to create tissue constructs. Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) offer the theoretical possibility of generating patient-specific organs, though formidable technical challenges remain. Machine perfusion of donor organs enables assessment and improvement of marginal organs, expanding the usable donor pool. Donation after circulatory death (DCD) protocols and normothermic regional perfusion are increasing organ availability. Precision medicine approaches using molecular diagnostics, pharmacogenomics, and individualized biomarkers promise to enable personalized immunosuppression with better outcomes and fewer complications. The trajectory of transplantation points toward increasingly sophisticated integration of immunology, engineering, and personalized medicine.
Panel A: Operational tolerance concept diagram showing transplant recipient maintaining stable graft function without immunosuppression (no drugs indicated), contrasted with standard state requiring lifelong immunosuppression, with biomarkers of tolerant state listed (Tregs, gene signatures, absence of DSA) and benefits (no infections, no malignancy, no drug toxicity).
Panel B: Tolerance induction strategies showing mixed chimerism approach (combined kidney and bone marrow transplant creating donor-recipient cellular coexistence, central and peripheral tolerance mechanisms), Treg infusion therapy (ex vivo expanded regulatory T cells establishing peripheral tolerance), and costimulation blockade with belatacept preventing full T cell activation.
Panel C: Xenotransplantation progress diagram showing wild-type pig organ rejection due to alpha-gal carbohydrate antibodies, then GTKO pig with alpha-gal knockout plus human complement regulatory gene insertions (CD46, CD55, CD59), and additional genetic modifications creating multi-gene edited pig suitable for human xenotransplantation, with timeline of clinical milestones.
Panel D: Future directions overview showing organ engineering (decellularized scaffold with recellularization, 3D bioprinting), expanded donor pools (machine perfusion of marginal organs, DCD protocols), and precision medicine approach (molecular diagnostics, pharmacogenomics, personalized immunosuppression based on individual biomarkers).
---
## Summary
- Allorecognition occurs through direct (recipient T cells recognizing intact donor MHC), indirect (recipient APCs presenting processed donor antigens), and semidirect (transfer of donor MHC to recipient APCs) pathways
- HLA matching is critical for bone marrow transplantation (10/10 match required) and beneficial for kidney transplantation, but less critical for liver due to organ-specific tolerance mechanisms
- Crossmatching detects preformed donor-specific antibodies; a positive crossmatch indicates high risk for hyperacute rejection and is generally a contraindication to transplantation
- Rejection types include hyperacute (minutes, preformed antibodies), acute (days-months, cellular or antibody-mediated), and chronic (months-years, fibrosis and vasculopathy with limited treatment options)
- GVHD occurs when donor T cells attack recipient tissues in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; acute GVHD targets skin, liver, and GI tract, while chronic GVHD resembles autoimmune connective tissue disease
- Induction therapy uses depleting agents (ATG, alemtuzumab) for high-risk recipients or non-depleting agents (basiliximab) for low-risk recipients
- Maintenance immunosuppression typically combines a calcineurin inhibitor, antiproliferative agent, and often corticosteroids, with monitoring for drug levels and toxicities
- Complications include infections (CMV, PCP, opportunistic pathogens), malignancies (skin cancer, PTLD, Kaposi sarcoma), and drug toxicities (nephrotoxicity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease)
- Future directions include tolerance induction (mixed chimerism, Treg therapy), xenotransplantation with genetically modified pigs, and precision medicine approaches for personalized immunosuppression
---
## Key Terms
| Term | Definition |
|------|------------|
| Allograft | Transplant between genetically different individuals of the same species, requiring immunosuppression to prevent rejection |
| Allorecognition | Process by which recipient immune cells recognize donor MHC molecules as foreign, triggering rejection |
| HLA matching | Determination of compatibility between donor and recipient human leukocyte antigens to minimize immunological barriers |
| Crossmatch | Pretransplant test mixing recipient serum with donor lymphocytes to detect preformed donor-specific antibodies |
| Hyperacute rejection | Immediate graft destruction (minutes to hours) caused by preformed antibodies against donor ABO or HLA antigens |
| Graft-versus-host disease | Complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in which donor T cells attack recipient tissues (skin, liver, GI tract) |
| Calcineurin inhibitor | Immunosuppressive drug (tacrolimus, cyclosporine) that blocks T cell activation by inhibiting calcineurin-mediated signaling |
| Operational tolerance | Long-term graft acceptance without immunosuppression and without evidence of chronic rejection |
| Xenotransplantation | Transplantation of organs between different species, typically from genetically modified pigs to humans |
---
*This content is subject to the [MIT License](https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT). © 2024–2026 Hibbert School of Medicine.*