
The gift of life: A visual history of organ transplantation
Animal stories
Genetics
New in medicineFacebookTweetLink
Follow
EDITOR'S NOTE: Watch 'Dr. Sanjay Gupta Reports: Animal Pharm' on Sunday, May 18, at 8 p.m. ET/PT on CNN.
There were more than 48,000 organ transplants in the United States last year. They're commonplace now, but the practice was considered experimental only a half-century ago.
Until just the past few years, transplants almost always involved human organs. Now, early experiments in xenotransplantation — transplanting animal organs into humans — are creating potential pathways to save lives.
Here's a look back at how we got to this point.
Xenotransplantation, the practice of transplanting organs between species, is a concept that has been around for hundreds of years.
Early in the 20th century, Dr. Mathieu Jaboulay turned the idea into action with one of the first well-documented attempts to make an animal organ work for a human. In 1906 in Lyon, France, Jaboulay attached a pig kidney to a 48-year-old woman's elbow, choosing that spot because it was easy to access. Blood circulated through the kidney, and the kidney produced urine, something even some human donations in this period failed to do, studies show.
The pig kidney quickly failed, and the patient died soon after due to an infection.
'The lack of having ready access to human organs has always sort of been the holy grail, that you would have something in reserve that didn't require a human to die in order for another human to live,' said Dr. Jeffrey Stern, a senior member of the NYU Langone Transplant Institute's xenotransplantation team. 'Obviously, animals as that source is sort of an ideal version of that.'
In 1954, the world's first successful human organ transplant was performed by Dr. Joseph E. Murray at what's now called Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
Murray took a kidney from 22-year-old Ronald Herrick and transplanted it into Richard Herrick, his twin brother. Because they were identical, Richard's immune system thought the new organ was its own, which prevented it from rejecting the foreign organ. Richard Herrick lived another eight years, and his organ donor brother had no harmful side effects.
'I think that really moved the field,' said Dr. Stefan Tullius, chief of the Division of Transplant Surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital.
'What that did show is that if you have the right combination and relationship between donor and recipient, then you indeed can transplant an organ and that is going to work,' Tullius added.
Since immunosuppressive drugs were not yet available, transplant experiments seemed to work only with twins whose immune systems thought the foreign organ were their own.
'You still ran into all those issues for the next 30 years with the immune system,' said Stern, who is also an assistant professor in the Department of Surgery at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. 'Not everyone has an identical twin.'
In the 1960s, Murray demonstrated in several experiments with dogs that an organ transplant would be more successful if the recipient received drugs to suppress the immune system after the procedure, to lower the chances of rejection.
In April 1962, in a world first that built on what he learned from those experiments, Murphy transplanted a kidney from a deceased donor into an unrelated human who was treated with an immunosuppressant called azathioprine. The patient survived more than a year, and s survival time lengthened even further when doctors discovered that an immunosuppressant worked better if given along with the steroid prednisone.
In June 1963, one of Murray's research fellows, Belgian surgeon Dr. Guy Alexandre, performed the first transplant operation from a brain-dead donor, a controversial procedure at the time. Alexandre had been searching for a kidney for a patient with renal failure when a woman who had been in a car accident was brought in to his Hôpital Saint-Pierre in Brussels. Her heart was beating, but she showed no brain activity. Knowing that organs lost viability as soon as a patient's heart stopped, Alexandre got permission from his department chair to transplant the woman's kidney into his patient with renal failure. The recipient lived another 87 days.
Over the next couple of years, Alexandre secretly performed other kidney transplants using brain-dead donors to see if such an approach would lengthen survival time compared with transplants from donors whose hearts had stopped. He disclosed the experiments at a medical conference a couple years later, to mixed reactions.
It wasn't until 1968 that a Harvard Medical School committee published its recommendation that irreversible loss of brain function – once called 'irreversible coma' – would be a new criterion for death. Afterward, transplants involving brain-dead donors became more common, vastly expanding the pool of available organs.
'To come up with the definition of brain death as an alternative to cardiac death – so the discontinuation of circulation – was huge, because it allowed the procurement of organs,' Tullius said.
Transplant doctors started experimenting with kidneys because humans have two and can survive with only one. Patients also had the option of dialysis if the transplant failed. But the more the doctors learned, the more confident they became that they could transplant other organs.
By the late 1960s, they started to experiment with livers and pancreases, and in 1967, South African surgeon Dr. Christiaan Barnard of Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town performed the first heart transplant. He transplanted a 25-year-old's heart into a 53-year-old grocer who was dying from chronic heart disease. The grocer died 18 days later from a lung infection, but the heart continued to beat until his death.
Barnard's second heart transplant patient lived almost 19 months. His fifth and sixth patients lived for almost 13 and 24 years, respectively.
By the 1990s, immunosuppressants like cyclosporine and tacrolimus opened new possibilities for transplants of multiple tissues. In 1998, Dr. Jean-Michel Dubernard did the first surgical hand transplant in Lyon, France. In 2005, he and Dr. Bernard Devauchelle performed the first partial face transplant for Isabelle Dinoire, a woman who lost part of her face in a dog attack. In 2010, a Spanish team led by Dr. Juan Barret performed the first full-face transplant.
'There's the first 30 years of transplantation that everything was sort of experimental, right?' Stern said. 'It wasn't a commonplace endeavor that we do what we currently do, and it was a lot of trial and error and survival, and sort of the entire field of transplantation, I think, was very tenuous in that. It was adaptation and invention of new technologies that allowed transplantation to become commonplace.'
In 1984, Dr. Leonard Bailey tried to save the life of Stephanie Fae Beauclair at Loma Linda University in California. The child, who became known as Baby Fae, was born with a deadly heart condition, and Bailey, who had been experimenting with cross-species transplants in animals, got permission to transplant a baboon heart. Stephanie lived just 21 more days, but the case generated more awareness about the need for infant organ donations and the possibility of cross-species transplantation.
Eventually, scientists decided that primates, although evolutionarily the closest cousin to humans, weren't the best organ donors.
'Primates turned out to be too small, too expensive and too controversial,' said medical ethicist Dr. Art Caplan, who works with transplant cases at NYU. There was also a concern about infection. Non-human primates may carry a variety of pathogens that are not harmful to them but that can cause disease in humans, including Marburg virus and HIV.
Eventually, scientists realized that pigs would be a better option: They're anatomically similar to humans, they breed quickly, and there was a reduced risk of zoonotic disease.
Research in xenotransplantation stalled until the development of the gene editing tool CRISPR in the early 2000s. This Nobel-winning technology gave scientists the ability to edit the pig genome to make it more compatible with humans', including knocking out key sequences in pig DNA that would result in almost automatic organ rejection in people. Combining that with cloning techniques gave scientists a chance to maintain consistent genetics and produce universal pig donors.
'Cloning and to apply CRISPR, to have the opportunity of gene editing, is really allowing not only transplantation but is also relevant for other areas of medicine,' Tullius said. 'I would put those in the revolutionary category.'
Pig organs had been transplanted into non-human primates, but the real test came in September 2021, when a genetically engineered pig kidney was transplanted to a brain-dead patient at NYU Langone.
The kidney was attached to the blood vessels in the recipient's upper leg, outside the abdomen, for 54 hours while doctors studied how well it functioned. The organ seemed to function as well as a human kidney transplant, and the doctors did not see any signs of rejection.
'We learned more from that than anything else that we've done,' Dr. Robert Montgomery, one of the surgeons who performed the procedure, told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta. 'It was really the basis of how we were able to figure out how to treat rejection in our living patients.'
'The family graciously approved donation of their loved one's body for this procedure. That extraordinary generosity paved the way for this major step forward in creating a sustainable supply of life-saving organs and hopefully ending the current paradigm that someone has to die for someone to live,' Montgomery said in a news release at the time.
On January 7, 2022, surgeons at the University of Maryland School of Medicine performed the first xenotransplant into a living person.
David Bennett, 57, could not walk and relied on an artificial lung and heart bypass machine to stay alive. He was too sick to qualify for a human heart but was able to undergo the experimental procedure under the US Food and Drug Administration's compassionate use pathway, which allows patients with no other alternatives to try experimental treatments.
He lived two additional months, having the chance to spend more time with his family and watch the Super Bowl.
'As with any first-in-the-world transplant surgery, this one led to valuable insights that will hopefully inform transplant surgeons to improve outcomes and potentially provide lifesaving benefits to future patients,' said his surgeon, Dr. Bartley Griffith.
Bennett was the first of a handful of compassionate use xenotransplant patients. But as researchers approach clinical trials, they hope they will have a better understanding of how successful the organs can be under more typical circumstances.
'The promise of xenotransplantation is the promise of hope for our patients. A hope for the future that for too long has been uncertain. It is hope turned to possibility turned to reality. Our patients can dream again about graduations, weddings … about life. Hope should not have to be rationed,' said Dr. Jayme Locke, a professor of surgery at NYU Langone.
'Multiple shots on goal' is how geneticist Dr. David Ayares describes United Therapeutics' approach to the future of organ transplantation.
This summer, the company will embark on the first FDA clinical trial of xenotransplantation.
'So instead of one-off compassionate use transplants that were very valuable in learning how to optimize and extend the survival of these patients, now we can go into a multicenter trial,' Ayares, president and chief scientific officer of Revivicor, a United Therapeutics subsidiary, told Gupta.
But that still won't be enough to solve the organ shortage completely, so United Therapeutics and others in the transplant community are continuing to think farther into the future. 'I think the next thing we're going to do is … create personalized organs where we don't have to use any immunosuppression,' Montgomery said of what he expects down the road.
This could mean using a pig's organ as scaffolding where scientists could seed human stem cells, or even 3D-printing organs.
'Then you have a designer organ for that person when they need it,' Montgomery said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for information on the Trump administration's contingency plans if billionaire Elon Musk breaches his companies' current contracts with the U.S. amid the ongoing public fallout between him and President Trump. In a letter to Rubio as acting national security adviser and obtained by CBS News, Warren said Mr. Trump and Musk's public disagreements about the upcoming reconciliation bill that escalated into a public online spat could "have serious implications for U.S. national security." The Massachusetts Democrat mentioned Mr. Trump's proposal to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies, which the world's richest man followed with a threat that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Musk has since walked back his threat. "No petty social media fight between the president and a billionaire should jeopardize U.S. national security," Warren said. In addition to contingency plans for SpaceX, the senator asked for information regarding the impact on U.S. agencies' satellite communications if Musk's Starlink is turned off. Additionally, she asked Rubio to provide any analysis that the Trump administration has conducted "of its authorities and options under the Defense Production Act to address vendor lock, monopolies, or contractor refusal to meet national security needs." She asked to receive answers to her questions by June 14, whether through a classified briefing or preferably a public response that can be released to Congress and the public, the letter said. Warren has been a vocal opponent of Musk and his involvement in the Trump administration. Last week, she released a report that outlines instances her office has found of Musk benefiting from it. Musk's rocket company has received tens of billions of dollars from the federal government over the last decade, including $3.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to federal records. The bulk of those federal grants are from NASA, which has paid SpaceX billions over the last decade to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. The agency has also awarded SpaceX upwards of $2 billion in recent years to design and build a lunar lander, as part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in a half-century. While the public spat appears to have cooled somewhat, Mr. Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Saturday that he has no plans to make up with the mega-billionaire. "I'm too busy doing other things," Trump continued. "You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him." When asked by a reporter Friday if he's still considering rolling back subsidies to Musk as a money-saving move, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to it. "He's got a lot of money, he gets a lot of subsidy. So we'll take a look at that," the president said on Air Force One. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country. I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair." This isn't the first time the president has needled Musk over his companies' federal subsidies. In a 2022 feud, Mr. Trump claimed Musk would be "worthless" without hefty subsidies for "electric cars that don't drive long enough" and "rocketships to nowhere." The two mended their relationship then and Musk spent hundreds of millions to help elect Mr. Trump in 2024. The billionaire went on to lead the Trump White House's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency until last week. contributed to this report.


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Denver Fork Cancer event to fight cancer, raise awareness for patients one bite at a time
Fundraiser called Fork Cancer to take place in July in Denver Fundraiser called Fork Cancer to take place in July in Denver Fundraiser called Fork Cancer to take place in July in Denver In Colorado, about one-in-two men and two-in-five women will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetimes. It's a common disease in our state, with about 25,000 Coloradans diagnosed every year. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network But Fork Cancer, hosted by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, is helping fight cancer. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network The party with a purpose features Denver fine culinary establishments while offering a variety of small plates, spirits and brews, and live entertainment acts. Ocular melanoma survivor Katie Doble will also share her powerful story of resilience. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network You're invited to Fork Cancer, July 17th at 6:30pm at Mile High Station. CBS Colorado Anchor Mekialaya White will host the event. Tickets are available here.


Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Part D Cancer Drug Launch Prices Soar Past Inflation
Launch prices for Medicare Part D anticancer drugs have risen sharply since 2012, with a mean increase of $1694 per year. In 2025, the observed prices were 15%-200% higher than expected if the increases were due to inflation alone, but the gap between observed and inflation-adjusted prices narrowed over the study period. METHODOLOGY: The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced price negotiation for Medicare-covered drugs and required manufacturers to pay rebates to Medicare for price increases above inflation. But it did not address the launch prices of new drugs. Anticancer drugs, a protected drug class with mandatory Medicare Part D coverage, may now be especially prone to higher launch prices, in part because the Inflation Reduction Act limits out-of-pocket spending and price increases after market entry. Researchers identified 86 branded, self-administered, molecularly targeted anticancer therapies approved by the FDA between January 2010 and December 2024. Data on drug prices were obtained from the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and adjusted for inflation. The researchers looked at launch prices by year and compared drug prices in 2025 with those expected if launch prices had increased due to inflation alone since the drug's market entry. TAKEAWAY: The mean monthly launch price increased from $10,954 for drugs first observed in the Medicare formulary in 2012-2014 to $27,891 for drugs first observed in 2023-2025. After adjusting for inflation, the mean launch price increased by $1694 per year ( P < .001). < .001). In 2025, actual drug prices were 14.8%-200.9% higher than expected if they had only kept pace with inflation. Although the gap between observed and inflation-adjusted prices narrowed over time, price increases continued to outpace inflation in 2023 and 2024, despite the Inflation Reduction Act rebate requirement, which will result in rebates to Medicare starting in fall 2025. IN PRACTICE: 'Launch prices for self-administered targeted anticancer therapies have grown precipitously, although no evidence was found of disproportionate increases in recent years. Instead, continued launch price growth for anticancer therapies was observed, consistent with prior research,' the study authors wrote. 'This suggests that companies were already engaging in price maximization for anticancer therapies and continued to do so after the implementation of the [Inflation Reduction Act].' SOURCE: This study, led by Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, was published online in JAMA . LIMITATIONS: This study used example indications to determine monthly doses and pricing. Additionally, variations in available price measures were noted over the study period. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Arnold Ventures. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees and having other ties with various sources.