Chiyoshi Toyama
Angus W. Thomson- 1Department of Surgery, Thomas E. Starzl Transplantation Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- 2Department of Immunology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
Achieving long-term allograft survival while minimizing systemic immunosuppression (IS) remains a critical unmet need in transplantation. While adaptive immunity has traditionally been the primary focus of IS therapy, innate immune cells—that include neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, dendritic cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, innate lymphoid cells (ILCs), natural killer (NK) cells, and gamma delta (γδ) T cells act as key upstream orchestrators of allograft rejection and tolerance. Recent advances in single-cell RNA sequencing and spatial transcriptomics have unveiled the profound heterogeneity of these cell populations, identifying distinct regulatory subsets and novel inhibitory checkpoints. These high-resolution insights provide the scientific rationale for developing innovative precision therapies that can selectively modulate innate immune reactivity without compromising global immunity. Here, we review innovative strategies to target/amplify these mechanisms, including targeting the myeloid inhibitory checkpoints (e.g., leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor B; sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin-E) to induce tolerogenic phenotypes. We further discuss the modulation of metabolic reprogramming to prevent “trained immunity” using mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi)-loaded nanoparticles, and the use of CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats)/Cas9 gene editing to silence T cell costimulatory signals. We evaluate the adoptive transfer of regulatory myeloid cells, -specifically donor-derived regulatory macrophages and regulatory dendritic cells, and innate lymphoid cells in transplant recipients. Furthermore, the potential of targeting specific NK cell and ILC subsets associated with graft regulation is addressed. Collectively, these emerging approaches aim to reprogram the allograft microenvironment, offering a promising paradigm shift towards establishing transplant tolerance.
1 Introduction
Historically, the therapeutic control of alloreactive immune responses induced by organ transplantation advanced dramatically due to improvements in the modes of action and safety of immunosuppressive (IS) drugs, in particular development of calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) (1). This resulted in outstanding short-term (1–3 year) patient and graft survival rates (2). Such success however, has been mitigated by poor, long-term (>5-year) graft survival, patient dependence on life-long, non-specific anti-rejection medication, and the adverse, cumulative side effects of these IS agents. Further, in recent years, there has been a dearth in clinical approval of innovative and effective approaches that might bring the field closer to achieving the long-sought goal of sustained, donor-specific transplant (tx) tolerance. If successful, safe induction of tx tolerance would improve long-term graft outcomes and minimize/eliminate the need for continued, chronic IS therapy (3–5).
The effectiveness of conventional IS drugs, -principally CNI, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi), and T cell-depleting or co-stimulation blocking agents, reflects their ability to effectively suppress the adaptive immune response. Thus, antagonism of T- and B- cell dependent adaptive immunity has been studied extensively, refined in preclinical models and underpinned the successful development of organ transplantation. Increasingly, however, attention has been directed towards the roles of the innate immune system in allorecognition and immune memory (6–8), and in regulation of alloimmunity (9–12), with a focus of innate immune cells as potential targets for innovative therapeutic intervention.
While the diverse phenotypes, activation states and complex signaling pathways implemented by innate immune cells, i.e., monocytes/macrophages, dendritic cells (DCs), granulocytes, natural killer (NK) cells and innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) require further elucidation (6, 13), it is evident that these cells play important roles, not only in initiating adaptive immunity, but also in regulation of allograft rejection. Thus, importantly, the CD47- signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPa) axis described by Dai et al. (14) represents a robust, innate immune checkpoint that modulates allorecognition by host myeloid cells. Moreover, donor-recipient mismatch at the SIRPa locus that induces innate immune activation is a determinant of human kidney tx outcome (15). Other recent studies using advanced technologies have provided insights into the contributions of innate immune cells to clinical tx outcomes (8). For instance, mRNA transcriptome analysis has revealed augmented expression of innate immune system genes during T cell-mediated human kidney tx rejection (16), while using special transcriptomics, Varin et al. (17) have identified a resident proinflammatory macrophage population (CXCL10+) that appears to drive renal allograft rejection. On the other hand, analyses of heart and kidney tx biopsies have shown that elevated expression of inhibitory receptors, such as sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin (Ig) -like lectins (Siglec7 and Siglec9) that are expressed on myeloid cells and NK cells and function to suppress immune responses, such as NK cell killing and T cell activity, is associated with prolonged graft survival (18).
As a further example, gene targeting and antibody (Ab)-mediated approaches have enhanced understanding of the significance of Notch pathway intercellular signaling in differentiation and fate determination of myeloid cells (macrophages and DCs) and ILCs in fine tuning the alloimmune response (19, 20). Based on studies in rodent and humanized mouse models, selective targeting of Notch-1 was shown to be a potential target for immune regulation in transplantation (21). However, evidence supporting direct targeting of Notch pathways to promote allotolerance remains limited.
Together, these findings illustrate the importance of innate immune cell populations in shaping organ tx outcomes.
Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) and spatial transcriptomics have revolutionized our understanding of the immune system by enabling high-resolution profiling of cellular heterogeneity and tissue-specific localization (22, 23). These technological innovations have provided unprecedented insights into innate immune cell function, under both physiological and pathological conditions. In transplantation, multi-omics approaches are increasingly being applied to dissect the complex immune landscape of graft rejection (24). Thus, for instance, recent studies have used these technologies to identify cell populations that express Fcγ RIII receptors (CD16; primarily NK cells, macrophages and neutrophils) that trigger functions like Ab-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (25) and to elucidate how genetic variations in the myeloid checkpoint inhibitor leukocyte Ig-like receptor B3 (LILRB3) modulate myeloid cell function to impact tx outcomes (26). Building on these mechanistic insights, emerging therapeutic strategies are being developed to precisely modulate innate immunity. These include (i) Ab-mediated targeting of innate immune cells to promote their tolerogenicity (27), (ii) nano-immunotherapeutic strategies that selectively target innate immune cell populations (28, 29), (iii) gene-editing approaches employing clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 technology (30), and (iv) adoptive cell therapy to enhance the numbers and function of regulatory myeloid cells (31–33), including prospective engineering of myeloid cells (34) in vivo.
Collectively, these approaches aim to promote tx tolerance, while minimizing the systemic side effects associated with conventional IS. In this Mini Review, we briefly discuss recent advances in targeting the innate immune system and explore therapeutic strategies tailored to exploit immunoregulatory functions of specific innate immune cell types (summarized in Figure 1; Table 1).
Figure 1. Schematic overview of innovative therapeutic strategies targeting innate immune cells to promote graft survival. (A) Target cell/molecule: key innate immune cells, including monocytes/macrophages, dendritic cells (DCs). Therapeutic modulation of these cell targets includes the overexpression (e.g., Siglec-E) and use of agonistic antibodies (e.g., anti-LILRB3) to reprogram monocytes/DCs toward a suppressive M2-like phenotype. (B) Nanoparticle-based modulation: in vivo therapeutic strategies include nanoparticle-based delivery of mTOR inhibitors or CRISPR/Cas9 gene-editing systems to reprogram metabolism or silence T cell costimulatory signals. (C) Cell infusion therapy: adoptive cell transfer of donor-derived regulatory macrophages (ddMregs), regulatory DCs (ddDCregs), or IL10 + ILC2s (allogeneic) represents an approach undergoing clinical evaluation or preclinical testing. While clinical trials have established the safety and immune modulation potential of several of these therapies, the collective goal of these interventions is to shift the immunological balance towards long-term transplant survival and tolerance.
Table 1. Innovative approaches to promote the tolerogenic function of innate immune cells.
2 Neutrophils
Neutrophils are the first key effector innate immune cells attracted to inflammatory sites. They exhibit specialized effector functions that include neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) generation and contribute to development of a sustained inflammatory environment (35). There is evidence that they regulate acute and chronic inflammation in transplanted organs (36). Recently, NETs have been reported to regulate Kupffer cell M1 polarization during acute liver rejection (37) and DC maturation through stimulator of interferon genes (STING)-related pathways, that may promote liver rejection (38), suggesting potential for therapeutic intervention. By inhibiting NET formation through the high mobility group box 1/Toll-like receptor 4/ mitogen-activated protein kinase (HMGB1/TLR4/MAPK) signaling pathway, the natural anti-oxidant salidroside has been reported to prevent rat acute liver transplant rejection (39).
3 Monocytes and macrophages
In recent years, blood monocytes have been categorized into classical (CD14++CD16−), intermediate (CD14++CD16+) and non-classical (CD14 + CD16++) subsets based on surface markers and function (40). Within tissues, resident macrophages form a distinct compartment with unique ontogeny and roles in graft acceptance or rejection (41, 42). These cells play dual roles in organ transplantation,- as promoters of rejection and inducers of tolerance (43, 44). Regarding their role in rejection, a recent transcriptional and spatial profiling study identified a specific association between recipient-derived FcyRIIIA+ monocytes and the severity of intra-graft inflammation. These activated FcyRIIIA+ monocytes overexpressed CD47 and leukocyte Ig-like receptor (LILR) genes and increased paracrine signaling pathways, promoting T cell infiltration (25). In contrast, regulatory macrophages (Mregs) have attracted attention for their potent IS properties and potential as cellular therapeutic agents (45–47). Specific macrophage subsets have also been shown to contribute to tx tolerance. In murine models, the C-type lectin receptor DC-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3-grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN)+ (=CD209+) macrophages suppressed CD8+ T cell proliferation and promoted the expansion of CD4+ forkhead box p3 (Foxp3+) regulatory T cells (Tregs) (48). Thus, deletion of DC-SIGN-expressing macrophages in vivo, interfering with their colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1)-dependent development, or preventing the DC-SIGN signaling pathway, abrogated co-stimulation blockade-induced heart transplant tolerance (48). Dual signaling through DC-SIGN ligands and the high mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1)–Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) axis was found to be essential for the induction of IS IL-10 production (48).
Leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor B (LILRB) family members that are expressed mainly on myeloid cells have been viewed traditionally as inhibitory receptors. Recent studies have demonstrated the role of LILRB3 (=Ig-like transcript 5; ILT5) in regulating human monocyte/macrophage function (26). Moreover, agonistic monoclonal Abs targeting LILRB3 reprogram human monocytes toward a suppressive, anti-inflammatory/reparative M2-like phenotype, reduce T cell proliferation in vitro and induce immune tolerance in humanized mouse models, allowing engraftment of allogeneic cells (27). These findings suggest that LILRB3 may represent a promising therapeutic checkpoint to modulate myeloid function in transplantation. On the other hand, there is evidence (49) that engagement of LILRB3 by HLA class 1 molecules can activate the Rho-associated coiled-coil forming kinase (ROCK) signaling pathway, suggesting context-dependent activating properties. Thus, the role of LILRB signaling in the setting of alloimmunity remains incompletely understood (50) and the potential of LILRB3 targeting to promote tolerance has yet to be firmly established. Of additional note, in the context of complement signaling, macrophages expressing the complement C5a receptor 1 (C5aR1) are prevented from accumulating in intestinal grafts when the C5a-C5aR1 pathway is blocked (51). Based on these observations, effective regulation of macrophage-mediated responses in transplantation will likely require multifaceted therapeutic interventions.
Mregs can be generated ex vivo from circulating monocytes under specific culture conditions, such as stimulation with colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1; =macrophage-CSF) and IFN-γ, resulting in cells that produce anti-inflammatory cytokines like IL-10 and express low levels of T cell costimulatory molecules. Limited but relevant experience of allogeneic donor-derived (dd) Mreg infusion in human renal tx recipients has been documented, confirming feasibility and safety (33, 52). In these studies, the University of Regensburg group reported on >20 renal tx pts infused once with ddMreg, either 7 days before or after tx. Two patients given 7–8 × 106 Mreg/kg, 6 or 7d pre-tx were minimized to low-dose tacrolimus monotherapy within 24 weeks of tx and subsequently maintained excellent graft function.
After iv administration, most Mreg remained viable and trafficked to the liver, spleen and BM (within 30 h) (33) resembling the migration of dd regulatory DCs (ddDCreg) infused pre-tx to host lymphoid tissue of human liver tx recipients (53). No adverse events or acute rejection episodes were observed over 3-year follow-up. Mreg-based cell therapy has also been evaluated in the ONE study (54, 55), that demonstrated the safety and feasibility of administering ddMregs to kidney tx recipients. Although initial findings did not provide conclusive evidence for improved rejection control or induction of long-term tolerance, these results established a foundation for further development of Mreg (including potentially, engineered Mreg) therapies. Mregs exert their immunoregulatory effects by suppressing CD8+ effector memory T cell (CD8+ Tem) proliferation, promoting the expansion of TIGIT-expressing induced Tregs (TIGIT+ iTregs) (47) and modulating Ag-presenting cell function, making them promising prospective adjuncts to conventional IS agents.
Traditionally, innate immune cells were thought to lack immunological memory. However, in an important recent study, Dai et al. (7) found that murine monocytes and macrophages could acquire memory specific to MHC complex I (MHC-I) Ags and identified A-type paired Ig-like receptors (PIR-As) as the MHC-I receptors necessary for the memory response. They further showed that blocking of PIR-A binding to donor MHC-I molecules blocked memory and attenuated kidney and heart allograft rejection indicating that acquisition of alloantigen-specific memory by myeloid cells can be targeted to improve transplant outcomes. Recent studies also highlight the concept of “trained immunity,” -i.e., innate immune memory characterized by long-term epigenetic and metabolic reprogramming of monocytes and macrophages (56). This in the context of transplantation, initial pro-inflammatory stimuli, such as ischemia-reperfusion injury, can induce a “trained” phenotype in recipient myeloid cells, leading to heightened responsiveness upon secondary stimulation and potentially contributing to acute and chronic rejection (57). Crucially, the induction of trained immunity relies on a metabolic shift toward aerobic glycolysis, a process tightly regulated by the mTOR pathway (58). Addressing this mechanism, a novel therapeutic approach using high-density lipoprotein (HDL) nanoparticles (NPs) loaded with mTOR inhibitors (mTORi-HDL) has been developed (28). These NPs are preferentially taken up by myeloid cells, especially macrophages in mouse heart allografts and systemically. mTORi-HDL treatment of the graft recipients enhances the accumulation of Ly-6Clow macrophages, that promote allograft tolerance (59). Inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α and IL-6, as well as lactate production, are significantly reduced, suggesting macrophage metabolic reprogramming toward an anti-inflammatory phenotype.
4 DCs
BM-derived DCs are the most proficient Ag-acquiring, -processing and -presenting cells and play a central role in initiation and regulation adaptive immune responses. They display inherent tolerogenic properties (60). Mechanisms whereby tolerogenic DCs mediate their immunoregulatory functions, including suppression of T effector cells, differentiation of CD4 Tregs and induction of regulatory properties in B cells, NK cells and CD8T cells have been reviewed (61–63). Moreover, Marin et al. (64) have reported that the tolerogenic function of DCs is linked intrinsically to distinct metabolic programs, making cell metabolism a central driver of DCreg function.
DCregs can be generated in vitro from circulating monocytes using pharmacologic or biologic agents that promote their tolerogenicity (65). When adoptively transferred to allograft recipients in preclinical models, these cells can promote tx tolerance (31, 66). Thus, DCs have emerged both as therapeutic targets and tools for promoting tx tolerance (67). NP-mediated delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 components enables in situ gene editing in DCs (30). Thus, in a murine skin tx model, iv injection of NPs carrying Cas9 mRNA and guide RNA targeting CD40 (CLANmCas9/gCD40) successfully induced Cas9 expression and CD40 gene knockout in DCs. While this approach shows promise for controlling rejection, further safety assessment is essential.
Siglec-E is an inhibitory receptor, found primarily on myeloid cells that acts as a negative regulator of inflammation by binding to sialic acid on other cells (68, 69). It regulates DC activation and T cell-mediated rejection in a mouse heart tx model (18). Thus Siglec-E deficiency enhances DC activation and inflammatory cytokine (IL-6, TNF-α, IL-18) production, accelerating acute rejection (18). In the same study, human homologs of Siglec-E, namely Siglec7 and Siglec9, were downregulated in patients with rejection and associated with decreased graft survival, indicating that targeting of these receptors may help suppress DC activation and promote tolerance.
DCregs can be generated in vitro from BM cells or peripheral blood monocytes using immunomodulatory agents, such as vitamin D3 or IL-10 (70). Compared to mature DCs, DCregs exhibit low expression of MHC class II and costimulatory molecules (CD80, CD86, CD40), while expressing higher levels of the inhibitory ligand programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). DCregs are also resistant to maturation upon TLR ligation or inflammatory cytokine stimulation.
In a non-human primate (NHP) kidney transplant model, pre-tx infusion of ddDCregs significantly prolonged graft survival in animals receiving minimal IS therapy (71). In clinical studies of live donor liver transplantation, pre-tx administration of ddDCregs has proven feasible and safe and is associated with a reduction in effector T cells (T-bet + Eomesodermin + CD8+ T cells) and CD16high NK cells (72). An increase in circulating, tolerogenic CD141 + CD163+ DCs, which may contribute to immunoregulation, was also observed. The long-term impact of these findings on graft survival is currently under investigation.
5 NK cells
In transplantation, NK cells contribute to both rejection and tolerance, depending on the context (73). Their activation is regulated by a balance of inhibitory and activating receptors, such as transmembrane killer-cell Ig-like receptors (KIRs) and NK group 2 member D (NKG2D), interacting with MHC class I molecules.
Recent studies of human allograft tissues have documented NK cell infiltration in acute rejection, with a particular increase in CD56low NK cells associated with cytotoxic potential (74). In murine models, NKG2D expression increases over the course of ischemic injury, the extent of which is reduced by adoptive transfer of NKG2D−/− NK cells, or through blockade of NKG2D (75). Furthermore, alloreactive adaptive NK cell subsets have been linked to microvascular inflammation in renal transplantation (76). Reinforcing this observation, recent spatial transcriptomics analysis has identified FcyRIII+ NK cells as key drivers of microvascular inflammation, acting alongside monocytes to recruit T cells via paracrine signaling (25). The development of novel anti-CD38 mAbs represents an important innovation in modulation of NK cell activity. As reported recently (77), encouraging effects have been achieved targeting CD38 in a phase II trial to inhibit kidney graft injury caused by alloantibodies and NK cells.
Under certain conditions however, NK cells may promote tolerance by eliminating donor Ag-presenting cells, thereby reducing T cell priming (78). Therapeutically, blockade of activating NK receptors and augmentation of inhibitory signaling are being investigated as strategies to limit NK cell activity (74). Potentially, expansion of tolerogenic NK subsets could be harnessed to promote graft acceptance. Overall, the dual roles of NK cells in mediation of rejection and regulation make complex but potentially promising targets for transplant immunotherapy (79).
6 MDSCs
MDSCs are a heterogeneous population of IS cells that develop from immature myeloid cells under inflammatory conditions (80). They are broadly classified into two main subsets: polymorphonuclear (PMN)-MDSCs and monocytic (M)-MDSCs that exhibit distinct IS mechanisms. Thus, PMN-MDSCs primarily produce reactive oxygen species and M-MDSCs mediate suppression via nitric oxide and arginase-1 pathways (81, 82). Understanding the biology/functional heterogeneity of MDSCs is critical for their potential therapeutic exploitation (83, 84).
In transplantation, MDSCs have attracted attention due to their synergistic interactions with Tregs in promoting and maintaining rodent kidney allograft tolerance (85). Engagement of the inhibitory receptor LILRB1 (ILT2 or CD85j) that suppresses T cell activation, by its principal ligand HLA-G, expands MDSCs with increased suppressive activity (86). Moreover, adoptive transfer of these MDSCs generated via the ILT2–HLA-G axis promotes long-term skin allograft survival in mice. These observations suggest that induction of MDSCs using ILT2-HLA-G might be a valuable approach to suppression of rejection. Notably, donor-derived MDSCs prolong mouse cardiac allograft survival in a donor-specific manner by inducing recipient endogenous MDSCs and suppressing effector T cell responses (87). Human MDSCs represent a promising immunoregulatory cell population that inhibits xenogeneic graft-vs.-host disease in humanized NOD/SCID/IL2-Rγc−/− mouse models (88, 89).
Recent research has helped to elucidate the complexity of MDSC biology in transplantation (84). Differentiating between PMN- and MDSC subsets has revealed their distinct roles in immune suppression (90). Notably, interactions between MDSCs and other innate immune cells, including DCs and NK cells, are emerging as important modulators of graft outcomes. Recent reports have also focused on a distinct metabolic phenotype underlying the differentiation of MDSCs in an inflammatory microenvironment, representing a regulatory target (91). Moreover, as with other regulatory immune cells, exosome products of MDSCs may play key roles in mediating their IS functions (92). These insights suggest that multifaceted approaches targeting MDSC subsets and their crosstalk with other immune cells may be necessary to harness their full therapeutic potential in transplantation.
7 ILCs
Based on their expression of transcription factors and cytokine profiles, ILCs are classified into three main groups: ILC1, ILC2, and ILC3, that functionally mirror Th1, Th2, and Th17 subsets, respectively (93, 94). Among these, type 2 ILCs (ILC2s), are the best-defined, depend on the transcription factor GATA binding protein 3, produce archetypal type 2 cytokines (such as IL-4, IL-5, IL-9 and IL-13) and are involved in allergic inflammation and anti-parasitic responses (95, 96). In a murine islet allograft model, IL-33 treatment significantly prolongs tx survival, increasing the frequency of ILC2s and Tregs in the spleen, kidney, and transplanted islets (97). ILCs are a key source of IL-10 (98) production that is critical for the IS function of ILC2s. Co-culture with IL-33 and IL-2 complexes significantly increases the proportion of IL-10–producing ILC2s and their adoptive transfer prolongs islet allograft survival, in an IL-10-dependent manner. Recent reports have shown that human IL-10 + ILC2s have therapeutic potential in islet allograft transplantation (99), xenogeneic graft-vs. host disease (100) and other immune-mediated disorders (101).
Although ILC2s have gained most attention for their regulatory potential, other ILC subsets may also influence tx outcome. Thus, recent studies by Kojima et al. (102) have revealed a novel, IFNg-mediated cytoprotective role of both recipient and donor ILC1s against ischemia-reperfusion injury in murine liver transplantation. In addition, ILC3s have been associated with successful human intestinal transplantation. Thus, serial monitoring revealed that in healthy allografts, protective ILC3s repopulated by 2–4 weeks post-tx, whereas in rejecting grafts they remained diminished (103).
Detailed mechanistic insights, potential augmentation and functional roles of these protective ILCs in preclinical tx models remain to be elucidated. Future studies should explore the therapeutic manipulation of ILCs, such as via cytokine therapy or ex vivo expansion strategies, that may help promote tolerance in clinical settings.
8 γδ T cells
Gamma delta (γδ) T cells are a unique population of lymphocytes that bridge innate and adaptive immunity. Various subsets may be considered components of the innate immune system (104). In particular, IL-17A + γδ T cells play a role in early stages of inflammation (105). In a murine skin transplant model, they contribute to the accumulation of mature DCs in draining lymph nodes, thereby regulating αβ T cell function and facilitating cross-priming of CD8+ T cells (106, 107). In a recent report, IL-17A γδ T cells, together with monocytes, have been associated with rapid alloimmune reactivity following mouse vascularized composite allograft (VCA) transplantation (108). This suggests that specific targeting of IL-17A γδ T cells and classical monocytes, that are not targeted specifically by current immunosuppressants, may control VCA rejection. Regulatory γδ T cells are a rare population of immunosuppressive γδ T cells. They use direct cell-to-cell interaction or secrete inhibitory cytokines such as IL-10 and TGF-β to mediate their functions (109, 110). To assess their full potential in the context of transplantation, a deeper comprehension of γδ T cell development and plasticity is essential (111).
9 Conclusions
Innate immune cells, including neutrophils, monocytes/macrophages, DCs, MDSCs, NK cells, ILCs, and γδ T cells play diverse and critical roles in both graft rejection and tolerance. While these cells sense graft injury and initiate inflammation, their functions can potentially be harnessed or modulated to promote IS and tolerance. Recent technological advances—such as sc RNA sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, nanomedicine, and CRISPR/Cas9—have enabled unprecedented resolution in characterizing the heterogeneity and functional states of innate immune cells. These tools have provided the foundation for precise analysis of cellular populations, assessment of cell enrichment and activity, and the development of cell-targeted therapeutic strategies. Since each innate immune cell population comprises distinct subsets, a key challenge to clinical translation is identification of the most effective and stable cell type that can most easily be safely programmed/augmented in vivo in conjunction with conventional or emerging immunosuppressive agents that primarily target adaptive immune cells. Deeper understanding of mechanisms of action of the most promising strategies and confirmation of their relevance to clinical outcomes in transplantation are needed. Nevertheless, immunotherapies that selectively target/program specific innate immune cell subsets hold promise for reducing/minimizing the adverse effects of global IS, while achieving long-term allograft acceptance. Therapeutic strategies designed to reprogram specific immune cell functions may pave the way for personalized tx medicine and significantly improve patient outcomes.
Author contributions
CT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Studies reported herein were supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants R01 AI184406; R01AI11877 and P01AI181829 to AT.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor JW declared a past co-authorship with the author AT.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Thomson AW, Starzl TE, editors. Immunosuppressive Drugs: Developments in Anti-Rejection Therapy. London; Boston: E. Arnold (1994).
2. Lechler RI, Sykes M, Thomson AW, Turka LA. Organ transplantation—how much of the promise has been realized? Nat Med. (2005) 11:605–13. doi: 10.1038/nm1251
3. Levitsky J. Operational tolerance: past lessons and future prospects. Liver Transplant. (2011) 17:222–32. doi: 10.1002/lt.22265
4. Dai H, Zheng Y, Thomson AW, Rogers NM. Transplant tolerance induction: insights from the liver. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:1–14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01044
5. Hariharan S, editor. Long-Term Care of Kidney Transplant Patients. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2024). 293–309. doi: 10.1093/med/9780197697320.001.0001
6. Lakkis FG, Li XC. Innate allorecognition by monocytic cells and its role in graft rejection. Am J Transplant. (2018) 18:289–92. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14436
7. Dai H, Lan P, Zhao D, Abou-Daya K, Liu W, Chen W, et al. PIRs mediate innate myeloid cell memory to nonself MHC molecules. Science. (2020) 368:1122–7. doi: 10.1126/science.aax4040
8. Thaunat O, Lakkis FG, Kosmoliaptsis V, Schinstock C, Tambur A, Heidt S, et al. Sensitization in transplantation assessment of risk 2025 innate working group: the potential role of innate allorecognition in kidney allograft damage. Am J Transplant. (2025) 25:2038–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2025.06.030
9. Rosborough BR, Raïch-Regué D, Liu Q, Venkataramanan R, Turnquist HR, Thomson AW. Adenosine triphosphate-competitive mTOR inhibitors: a new class of immunosuppressive agents that inhibit allograft rejection. Am J Transplant. (2014) 14:2173–80. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12799
10. Ochando J, Ordikhani F, Jordan S, Boros P, Thomson AW. Tolerogenic dendritic cells in organ transplantation. Transpl Int. (2020) 33:113–27. doi: 10.1111/tri.13504
11. Pontrelli P, Rascio F, Castellano G, Grandaliano G, Gesualdo L, Stallone G. The role of natural killer cells in the immune response in kidney transplantation. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:1–10. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01454
12. Mak ML, Reid KT, Crome SQ. Protective and pathogenic functions of innate lymphoid cells in transplantation. Clin Exp Immunol. (2023) 213:23–39. doi: 10.1093/cei/uxad050
13. Guilliams M, Bonnardel J, Haest B, Vanderborght B, Wagner C, Remmerie A, et al. Spatial proteogenomics reveals distinct and evolutionarily conserved hepatic macrophage niches. Cell (2022) 185:379–96.e38. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.12.018
14. Dai H, Friday AJ, Abou-Daya KI, Williams AL, Mortin-Toth S, Nicotra ML, et al. Donor SIRP polymorphism modulates the innate immune response to allogeneic grafts. Sci Immunol. (2017) 2:eaam6202. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aam6202
15. Zhao D, Dai H, Macedo C, Sanders SM, Elias C, Friday AJ, et al. Donor-recipient mismatch at the SIRPA locus adversely affects kidney allograft outcomes. Sci Transl Med. (2025) 17:1–12. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.ady1135
16. Mueller FB, Yang H, Lubetzky M, Verma A, Lee JR, Dadhania DM, et al. Landscape of innate immune system transcriptome and acute T cell–mediated rejection of human kidney allografts. JCI Insight. (2019) 4:e128014. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.128014
17. Varin A, Palvair J, Messager L, Bamoulid J, Callemeyn J, Chaintreuil M, et al. A subset of pro-inflammatory CXCL10+ LILRB2+ macrophages derives from recipient monocytes and drives renal allograft rejection. Adv Sci. (2026) 9:e21294. doi: 10.1002/advs.202521294
18. Borges TJ, Lima K, Gassen RB, Liu K, Ganchiku Y, Ribas GT, et al. The inhibitory receptor siglec-E controls antigen-presenting cell activation and T cell-mediated transplant rejection. Sci Transl Med (2025) 17:eads2694. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.ads2694
19. Murakami N, Maillard I, Riella LV. Notch signaling and immune regulation in alloimmunity. Curr Transplant Reports (2016) 3:294–302. doi: 10.1007/s40472-016-0126-5
20. Radojcic V, Maillard I. Notch signaling and alloreactivity. Transplantation. (2016) 100:2593–600. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001468
21. Magee CN, Murakami N, Borges TJ, Shimizu T, Safa K, Ohori S, et al. Notch-1 inhibition promotes immune regulation in transplantation via regulatory T cell-dependent mechanisms. Circulation. (2019) 140:846–63. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.040563
22. Efremova M, Vento-Tormo R, Park JE, Teichmann SA, James KR. Immunology in the era of single-cell technologies. Annu Rev Immunol. (2020) 38:727–57. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-090419-020340
23. Moses L, Pachter L. Museum of spatial transcriptomics. Nat Methods. (2022) 19:534–46. doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01409-2
24. Ott LC, Cuenca AG. Innate immune cellular therapeutics in transplantation. Front Transplant. (2023) 2:e1067512. doi: 10.3389/frtra.2023.1067512
25. Lamarthée B, Callemeyn J, Van Herck Y, Antoranz A, Anglicheau D, Boada P, et al. Transcriptional and spatial profiling of the kidney allograft unravels a central role for FcyRIII+ innate immune cells in rejection. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:1–22. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-39859-7
26. Sun Z, Yi Z, Wei C, Wang W, Ren T, Cravedi P, et al. LILRB3 Genetic variation is associated with kidney transplant failure in African American recipients. Nat Med. (2025) 31:1677–87. doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03568-z
27. Yeboah M, Papagregoriou C, Jones DC, Chan HTC, Hu G, McPartlan JS, et al. LILRB3 (ILT5) is a myeloid cell checkpoint that elicits profound immunomodulation. JCI Insight. (2020) 5:e141593. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.141593
28. Braza MS, van Leent MMT, Lameijer M, Sanchez-Gaytan BL, Arts RJW, Pérez-Medina C, et al. Inhibiting inflammation with myeloid cell-specific nanobiologics promotes organ transplant acceptance. Immunity. (2018) 49:819–28.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2018.09.008
29. van Leent MMT, Meerwaldt AE, Berchouchi A, Toner YC, Burnett ME, Klein ED, et al. A modular approach toward producing nanotherapeutics targeting the innate immune system. Sci Adv. (2021) 7:1–12. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abe7853
30. Zhang Y, Shen S, Zhao G, Xu CF, Zhang HB, Luo YL, et al. In situ repurposing of dendritic cells with CRISPR/Cas9-based nanomedicine to induce transplant tolerance. Biomaterials. (2019) 217:119302. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119302
31. Morelli AE, Thomson AW. Tolerogenic dendritic cells and the quest for transplant tolerance. Nat Rev Immunol. (2007) 7:610–21. doi: 10.1038/nri2132
32. Moreau A, Alliot-Licht B, Cuturi MC, Blancho G. Tolerogenic dendritic cell therapy in organ transplantation. Transpl Int. (2017) 30:754–64. doi: 10.1111/tri.12889
33. Hutchinson JA, Riquelme P, Sawitzki B, Tomiuk S, Miqueu P, Zuhayra M, et al. Cutting edge: immunological consequences and trafficking of human regulatory macrophages administered to renal transplant recipients. J Immunol. (2011) 187:2072–8. doi: 10.4049/JIMMUNOL.1100762
34. Freitas BFA, Verchere CB, Levings MK. Advances in engineering myeloid cells for cell therapy applications. ACS Synth Biol. (2025) 14:10–20. doi: 10.1021/acssynbio.4c00589
35. Torfs K, Vermeersch G, Gouwy M, Devos T, Proost P, Struyf S. Neutrophils as critical orchestrators of chronic inflammation. Cell Mol Immunol. (2026). doi: 10.1038/s41423-025-01380-w
36. Scozzi D, Ibrahim M, Menna C, Krupnick AS, Kreisel D, Gelman AE. The role of neutrophils in transplanted organs. Am J Transplant. (2017) 17:328–35. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13940
37. Liu Y, Pu X, Qin X, Gong J, Huang Z, Luo Y, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps regulate HMGB1 translocation and kupffer cell M1 polarization during acute liver transplantation rejection. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:1–15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.823511
38. Wang Y, Yin J, Yu C, Wu D, Chen Y, Han Q, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps activate STING signaling to promote dendritic cell-driven rejection after liver transplantation. Int Immunopharmacol. (2025) 160:114763. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2025.114763
39. Qin X, Wang H, Li Q, Hu D, Wang L, Zhou B, et al. Salidroside ameliorates acute liver transplantation rejection in rats by inhibiting neutrophil extracellular trap formation. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). (2024) 56:833–43. doi: 10.3724/abbs.2024055
40. Song J, Cho J, Kim YC, Lee H. The alteration of monocyte subsets and the early acute rejection after kidney transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. (2023) 34:23. doi: 10.1681/asn.20233411s123a
41. Aiello S, Benigni A, Remuzzi G. Tissue-resident macrophages in solid organ transplantation: harmful or protective? J Immunol. (2024) 212:1051–61. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.2300625
42. Zhao J, Andreev I, Silva HM. Resident tissue macrophages: key coordinators of tissue homeostasis beyond immunity. Sci Immunol. (2024) 9:eadd1967. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.add1967
43. Salehi S, Reed EF. The divergent roles of macrophages in solid organ transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. (2015) 20:446–53. doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000209
44. Zhang F, Zhang J, Cao P, Sun Z, Wang W. The characteristics of regulatory macrophages and their roles in transplantation. Int Immunopharmacol. (2021) 91:107322. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2020.107322
45. Guo F, Hu M, Huang D, Zhao Y, Heng B, Guillemin G, et al. Human regulatory macrophages are potent in suppression of the xenoimmune response via indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase-involved mechanism(s). Xenotransplantation (2017) 24:1–11. doi: 10.1111/xen.12326
46. Scalea JR, Tomita Y, Lindholm CR, Burlingham W. Transplantation tolerance induction: cell therapies and their mechanisms. Front Immunol. (2016) 7:1–12. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2016.00087
47. Riquelme P, Haarer J, Kammler A, Walter L, Tomiuk S, Ahrens N, et al. TIGIT+ iTregs elicited by human regulatory macrophages control T cell immunity. Nat Commun. (2018) 9:1–18. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05167-8
48. Conde P, Rodriguez M, van der Touw W, Jimenez A, Burns M, Miller J, et al. DC-SIGN+ macrophages control the induction of transplantation tolerance. Immunity. (2015) 42:1143–58. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2015.05.009
49. Ayukawa S, Kamoshita N, Nakayama J, Teramoto R, Pishesha N, Ohba K, et al. Epithelial cells remove precancerous cells by cell competition via MHC class I–LILRB3 interaction. Nat Immunol. (2021) 22:1391–402. doi: 10.1038/s41590-021-01045-6
50. Palvair J, Farhat I, Chaintreuil M, Dal Zuffo L, Messager L, Tinel C, et al. The potential role of the leucocyte immunoglobulin-like receptors in kidney transplant rejection: a Mini review. Transpl Int (2024) 37:1–6. doi: 10.3389/ti.2024.12995
51. Toyama C, Maeda A, Kogata S, Takase K, Kodama T, Masahata K, et al. Effect of a C5a receptor antagonist on macrophage function in an intestinal transplant rat model. Transpl Immunol. (2022) 72:101559. doi: 10.1016/j.trim.2022.101559
52. Hutchinson JA, Riquelme P, Brem-Exner BG, Schulze M, Matthäi M, Renders L, et al. Transplant acceptance-inducing cells as an immune-conditioning therapy in renal transplantation. Transpl Int. (2008) 21:728–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00680.x
53. Macedo C, Tran LM, Zahorchak AF, Dai H, Gu X, Ravichandran R, et al. Donor-derived regulatory dendritic cell infusion results in host cell cross-dressing and T cell subset changes in prospective living donor liver transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. (2021) 21:2372–86. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16393
54. Sawitzki B, Harden PN, Reinke P, Moreau A, Hutchinson JA, Game DS, et al. Regulatory cell therapy in kidney transplantation (the ONE study): a harmonised design and analysis of seven non-randomised, single-arm, phase 1/2A trials. Lancet. (2020) 395:1627–39. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30167-7
55. Hutchinson JA, Brem-Exner BG, Riquelme P, Roelen D, Schulze M, Ivens K, et al. A cell-based approach to the minimization of immunosuppression in renal transplantation. Transpl Int. (2008) 21:742–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00692.x
56. Netea MG, Domínguez-Andrés J, Barreiro LB, Chavakis T, Divangahi M, Fuchs E, et al. Defining trained immunity and its role in health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol. (2020) 20:375–88. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-0285-6
57. Ochando J, Mulder WJM, Madsen JC, Netea MG, Duivenvoorden R. Trained immunity—basic concepts and contributions to immunopathology. Nat Rev Nephrol. (2023) 19:23–37. doi: 10.1038/s41581-022-00633-5
58. Cheng S-C, Quintin J, Cramer RA, Shepardson KM, Saeed S, Kumar V, et al. mTOR- and HIF-1α-mediated aerobic glycolysis as metabolic basis for trained immunity. Science. (2014) 345:1250684. doi: 10.1126/science.1250684
59. Braza MS, Conde P, Garcia M, Cortegano I, Brahmachary M, Pothula V, et al. Neutrophil derived CSF1 induces macrophage polarization and promotes transplantation tolerance. Am J Transplant. (2018) 18:1247–55. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14645
60. Ohnmacht C, Pullner A, King SBS, Drexler I, Meier S, Brocker T, et al. Constitutive ablation of dendritic cells breaks self-tolerance of CD4T cells and results in spontaneous fatal autoimmunity. J Exp Med. (2009) 206:549–59. doi: 10.1084/jem.20082394
61. Suuring M, Moreau A. Regulatory macrophages and tolerogenic dendritic cells in myeloid regulatory cell-based therapies. Int J Mol Sci. (2021) 22:157970. doi: 10.3390/ijms22157970
62. Ness S, Lin S, Gordon JR. Regulatory dendritic cells, T cell tolerance, and dendritic cell therapy for immunologic disease. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:63343. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.633436
63. Polonio CM, Qualiotto AN, da Silva LT, Quintana FJ. Dendritic cells: orchestrators of immune responsiveness and tolerance. Immunol Rev. (2025) 336:1–16. doi: 10.1111/imr.70073
64. Marin E, Bouchet-Delbos L, Renoult O, Louvet C, Nerriere-Daguin V, Managh AJ, et al. Human tolerogenic dendritic cells regulate immune responses through lactate synthesis. Cell Metab (2019) 30:1075–1090.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2019.11.011
65. Hackstein H, Thomson AW. Dendritic cells: emerging pharmacological targets of immunosuppressive drugs. Nat Immunol. (2004) 4:24–34. doi: 10.1038/nri1256
66. Vassalli G. Dendritic cell-based approaches for therapeutic immune regulation in solid-organ transplantation. J Transplant. (2013) 2013:1–17. doi: 10.1155/2013/761429
67. Morelli AE, Thomson AW. Orchestration of transplantation tolerance by regulatory dendritic cell therapy or in-situ targeting of dendritic cells. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. (2014) 19:348–56. doi: 10.1097/MOT.0000000000000097
68. Crocker PR, Paulson JC, Varki A. Siglecs and their roles in the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol. (2007) 7:255–66. doi: 10.1038/nri2056
69. McMillan SJ, Sharma RS, McKenzie EJ, Richards HE, Zhang J, Prescott A, et al. Siglec-E is a negative regulator of acute pulmonary neutrophil inflammation and suppresses CD11b b2-integrin-dependent signaling. Blood. (2013) 121:2084–94. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-08-449983
70. Zahorchak AF, DeRiggi ML, Muzzio JL, Sutherland V, Humar A, Lakkis FG, et al. Manufacturing and validation of good manufacturing practice–compliant regulatory dendritic cells for infusion into organ transplant recipients. Cytotherapy. (2023) 25:432–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2022.11.005
71. Ezzelarab MB, Zahorchak AF, Lu L, Morelli AE, Chalasani G, Demetris AJ, et al. Regulatory dendritic cell infusion prolongs kidney allograft survival in nonhuman primates. Am J Transplant. (2013) 13:1989–2005. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12310
72. Tran LM, Macedo C, Zahorchak AF, Gu X, Elinoff B, Singhi AD, et al. Donor-derived regulatory dendritic cell infusion modulates effector CD8+ T cell and NK cell responses after liver transplantation. Sci Transl Med. (2023) 15:1–16. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.adf4287
73. Halma J, Pierce S, McLennan R, Bradley T, Fischer R. Natural killer cells in liver transplantation: can we harness the power of the immune checkpoint to promote tolerance? Clin Transl Sci. (2022) 15:1091–103. doi: 10.1111/cts.13208
74. Ruan DF, Fribourg M, Park YY, Martin YH, Yu MP, Kelly H, et al. High-dimensional analysis of NK cells in kidney transplantation uncovers subsets associated with antibody-independent graft dysfunction. JCI Insight. (2024) 9:e185687. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.185687
75. Calabrese DR, Aminian E, Mallavia B, Liu F, Cleary SJ, Aguilar OA, et al. Natural killer cells activated through NKG2D mediate lung ischemia-reperfusion injury. J Clin Invest. (2021) 131:e137047. doi: 10.1172/JCI137047
76. Alari-Pahissa E, Federico-Vega J, Ataya M, Buxeda A, Bello-Rico V, Gimeno J, et al. Alloreactive adaptive natural killer cells in renal transplantation: potential contribution to allograft microvascular inflammation. Am J Transplant. (2025) 25:1657–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2025.04.024
77. Mayer KA, Schrezenmeier E, Diebold M, Halloran PF, Schatzl M, Schranz S, et al. A randomized phase 2 trial of felzartamab in antibody-mediated rejection. N Engl J Med. (2024) 391:122–32. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa2400763
78. Dugast E, David G, Oger R, Danger R, Judor JP, Gagne K, et al. Broad impairment of natural killer cells from operationally tolerant kidney transplanted patients. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:1–15. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01721
79. Zamir MR, Shahi A, Salehi S, Amirzargar A. Natural killer cells and killer cell immunoglobulin-like receptors in solid organ transplantation: protectors or opponents? Transplant Rev. (2022) 36:100723. doi: 10.1016/J.TRRE.2022.100723
80. Veglia F, Sanseviero E, Gabrilovich DI. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the era of increasing myeloid cell diversity. Nat Rev Immunol. (2021) 21:485–98. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-00490-y
81. Wu Y, Yi M, Niu M, Mei Q, Wu K. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells: an emerging target for anticancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer. (2022) 21:1–19. doi: 10.1186/s12943-022-01657-y
82. Xiong X, Zhang Y, Wen Y. Diverse functions of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in autoimmune diseases. Immunol Res. (2024) 72:34–49. doi: 10.1007/s12026-023-09421-0
83. Scalea JR, Lee YS, Davila E, Bromberg JS. Myeloid-Derived suppressor cells and their potential application in transplantation. Transplantation. (2018) 102:359–67. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002022
84. Shao L, Pan S, Zhang QP, Jamal M, Rushworth GM, Xiong J, et al. Emerging role of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the biology of transplantation tolerance. Transplantation. (2020) 104:467–75. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002996
85. Dilek N, Poirier N, Usal C, Martinet B, Blancho G, Vanhove B. Control of transplant tolerance and intragraft regulatory T cell localization by myeloid-derived suppressor cells and CCL5. J Immunol. (2012) 188:4209–16. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1101512
86. Zhang W, Liang S, Wu J, Horuzsko A. Human inhibitory receptor ILT2 amplifies CD11b+ Gr1+ myeloid- derived suppressor cells that promote long-term survival of allografts. Transplantation. (2008) 86:1125–34. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318186fccd.Human
87. Cai S, Choi JY, Borges TJ, Zhang H, Miao J, Ichimura T, et al. Donor myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) prolong allogeneic cardiac graft survival through programming of recipient myeloid cells in vivo. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:14249. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-71289-z
88. Gérard C, Thébault M, Lamarthée B, Genet C, Cattin F, Brazdova A, et al. Human monocyte-derived suppressor cell supernatant induces immunoregulatory effects and mitigates xenoGvHD. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:1–13. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.827712
89. Janikashvili N, Gérard C, Thébault M, Brazdova A, Boibessot C, Cladière C, et al. Efficiency of human monocyte-derived suppressor cell-based treatment in graft-versus-host disease prevention while preserving graft-versus-leukemia effect. Oncoimmunology. (2021) 10:e1880046. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1880046
90. Yang F, Li Y, Zou W, Xu Y, Wang H, Wang W, et al. Adoptive transfer of IFN-γ-induced M-MDSCs promotes immune tolerance to allografts through iNOS pathway. Inflamm Res. (2019) 68:545–55. doi: 10.1007/s00011-019-01237-9
91. Iske J, Cao Y, Roesel MJ, Shen Z, Nian Y. Metabolic reprogramming of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the context of organ transplantation. Cytotherapy. (2023) 25:789–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2023.04.010
92. Avalos-De Leon CG, Thomson AW. Regulatory immune cell-derived exosomes: modes of action and therapeutic potential in transplantation. Transplantation. (2025) 109:1124–37. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000005309
93. Fol M, Karpik W, Zablotni A, Kulesza J, Kulesza E, Godkowicz M, et al. Innate lymphoid cells and their role in the immune response to infections. Cells. (2024) 13:335. doi: 10.3390/cells13040335
94. Ryu S, Lim MY, Kim J, Kim HY. Versatile roles of innate lymphoid cells at the mucosal barrier: from homeostasis to pathological inflammation. Exp Mol Med. (2023) 55:1845–57. doi: 10.1038/s12276-023-01022-z
95. Spits H, Mjösberg J. Heterogeneity of type 2 innate lymphoid cells. Nat Rev Immunol. (2022) 22:701–12. doi: 10.1038/s41577-022-00704-5
96. Krabbendam L, Bal SM, Spits H, Golebski K. New insights into the function, development, and plasticity of type 2 innate lymphoid cells. Immunol Rev. (2018) 286:74–85. doi: 10.1111/IMR.12708
97. Huang Q, Ma X, Wang Y, Niu Z, Wang R, Yang F, et al. IL -10 producing type 2 innate lymphoid cells prolong islet allograft survival. EMBO Mol Med. (2020) 12:1–16. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202012305
98. Sun H, Wu Y, Zhang Y, Ni B. IL-10-producing ILCs: molecular mechanisms and disease relevance. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:1–10. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.650200
99. Colpitts SJ, Jegatheeswaran S, Oakie A, Mashhouri S, Sachewsky N, Murshed H, et al. Cell therapy with human interleukin 10–producing ILC2s enhances islet function and inhibits allograft rejection. Am J Transplant. (2025) 25:1858–69. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2025.05.023
100. Reid KT, Colpitts SJ, Mathews JA, Santos Carreira A, Murphy JM, Borovsky DT, et al. Cell therapy with human IL-10-producing ILC2s limits xenogeneic graft-versus-host disease by inhibiting pathogenic T cell responses. Cell Rep. (2025) 44:115102. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.115102
101. Seehus CR, Kadavallore A, Torre BD La, Yeckes AR, Wang Y, Tang J, et al. Alternative activation generates IL-10 producing type 2 innate lymphoid cells. Nat Commun. (2017) 8:1900. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02023-z
102. Kojima H, Morinelli TA, Wang Y, Chin JL, Meyer AS, Kao YC, et al. Group 1 innate lymphoid cells protect liver transplants from ischemia-reperfusion injury via an interferon gamma–mediated pathway. Am J Transplant. (2025) 25:969–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ajt.2024.11.035
103. Kang J, Loh K, Belyayev L, Cha P, Sadat M, Khan K, et al. Type 3 innate lymphoid cells are associated with a successful intestinal transplant. Am J Transplant. (2021) 21:787–97. doi: 10.1111/ajt.16163
104. Born WK, Reardon CL, O’Brien LR. The function of γδ T cells in innate immunity. Curr Opin Immunol. (2006) 18:31–8. doi: 10.1016/J.COI.2005.11.007
105. Papotto PH, Ribot JC, Silva-Santos B. IL-17+γδ T cells as kick-starters of inflammation. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:604–11. doi: 10.1038/ni.3726
106. Rahimpour A, Mattarollo SR, Yong M, Leggatt GR, Steptoe RJ, Frazer IH. Γ T cells augment rejection of skin grafts by enhancing cross-priming of CD8T cells to skin-derived antigen. J Invest Dermatol. (2012) 132:1656–64. doi: 10.1038/jid.2012.16
107. Kaminski H, Couzi L, Eberl M. Unconventional T cells and kidney disease. Nat Rev Nephrol. (2021) 17:795–813. doi: 10.1038/s41581-021-00466-8
108. Tajima T, Zhang W, Han S, Reitsma A, Harden JT, Fuentes S, et al. IL-17A-producing γδ T cells and classical monocytes are associated with a rapid alloimmune response following vascularized composite allotransplantation in mice. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1–14. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1584916
109. Peters C, Oberg HH, Kabelitz D, Wesch D. Phenotype and regulation of immunosuppressive Vδ2-expressing γδ T cells. Cell Mol Life Sci. (2014) 71:1943–60. doi: 10.1007/s00018-013-1467-1
110. Kabelitz D, Peters C, Wesch D, Oberg HH. Regulatory functions of γδ T cells. Int Immunopharmacol. (2013) 16:382–7. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2013.01.022
111. Hu Y, Hu Q, Li Y, Lu L, Xiang Z, Yin Z, et al. Γδ T cells: origin and fate, subsets, diseases and immunotherapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther (2023) 8:434. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01653-8
Glossary
Ab antibody
Ag antigen
CLANmCas9/gCD40 Cas9 mRNA and guide RNA targeting CD40
CD8+ Tem(s) CD8 + effector memory T cell(s)
C5aR1 C5a receptor 1
CSF1 colony-stimulating factor 1
CNI calcineurin inhibitor
CRISPR clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats
DC(s) dendritic cell(s)
DCreg(s) regulatory DC(s)
DC-SIGN DC-specific intercellular adhesion molecule-3-grabbing non-integrin
dd donor-derived
Foxp3 forkhead box p3
γδ T cell(s) Gamma delta T cells
GATA3 GATA-binding protein 3
HDL high-density lipoprotein
HMGB1 high mobility group box 1 protein
HMGB1/TLR4/MARK high mobility group box 1/Toll-like receptor 4/ mitogen-activated protein kinase
ILC(s) innate lymphoid cell(s)
IS immunosuppressive or immunosuppression
ILC1(s) type 1 ILC(s)
ILC2(s) type 2 ILC(s)
ILC3(s) type 3 ILC(s)
ILT immunoglobulin-like transcript
KIR(s) killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptor(s)
LILR(s) leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptor(s)
MDSC(s) myeloid-derived suppressor cell(s)
M-MDSC(s) mononuclear MDSC(s)
Mreg(s) regulatory macrophage(s)
mTORi mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor
NET(s) neutrophil extracellular trap(s)
NHP non-human primate
NK cell(s) natural killer cell(s)
NKG2D NK group 2 member D
NP(s) nanoparticle(s)
PD-L1 programed death-ligand 1
PMN-MDSC(s) polymorphonuclear-MDSC(s)
ROCK Rho-associated coiled-coil forming kinase
SIGLEC sialic acid-binding immunoglobulin-like lectin
scRNA-seq single-cell RNA sequencing
SIRPa Signal regulatory protein alpha
TCMR T cell–mediated rejection
TIGIT+ iTreg(s) T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domains-expressing induced Treg(s)
TLR(s) Toll-like receptor(s)
tx transplant
Keywords: dendritic cells, immunotherapy, innate lymphoid cells, macrophages, monocytes, myeloid cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, natural killer cells
Citation: Toyama C and Thomson AW (2026) Innovative approaches targeting innate immune cells to promote organ transplant tolerance. Front. Transplant. 5:1776806. doi: 10.3389/frtra.2026.1776806
Received: 28 December 2025; Revised: 19 January 2026;
Accepted: 20 January 2026;
Published: 9 February 2026.
Edited by:
Jerzy Kupiec-Weglinski, University of California, Los Angeles, United StatesReviewed by:
Baptiste Lamarthée, Université de Franche-Comté, FranceDawei Zou, Houston Methodist Research Institute, United States
Copyright: © 2026 Toyama and Thomson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Angus W. Thomson, dGhvbXNvbmF3QHVwbWMuZWR1