Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19469029›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in organ transplantation2009

Genetic manipulation in pigs.

David H Sachs, Cesare Galli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in organ transplantation, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Whole-genome resequencing analyses of five pig breeds, including Korean wild and native, and three European origin breeds.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2015
    Article
  14. High incidence of xenogenic bone marrow engraftment in pig-to-baboon intra-bone bone marrow transplantation.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Kidney xenotransplantation.Kidney international · 2014
    Review
  18. Innate cellular immunity and xenotransplantation.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2012
    Review
  19. Current progress in xenogeneic tolerance.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2012
    Review
  20. Precision editing of large animal genomes.Advances in genetics · 2012
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David H SachsMassachusetts General Hospital, Transplantation Biology Research Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02129, USA. david.sachs@tbrc.mgh.harvard.edu
Cesare Galli

Funding

XENOGRAFT TOLERANCE THROUGH MIXED CHIMERISMP01AI045897 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI Megan Sykes · 2000 to 2026
$71.9M
NIAID NIH HHS 5P01-AI45897-07NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI045897
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewRecent developments in the field of genetic engineering have made it possible to add, delete or exchange genes from one species to another. This technology has special relevance to the field of xenotransplantation, in which the elimination of a species-specific disparity could make the difference between success and failure of an organ transplant. This review focuses on developments in both the techniques and applications of genetically modified animals. RECENT

findingsAdvances have been made using existing techniques for genetic modifications of swine and in the development of new, emerging technologies, including enzymatic engineering and the use of small interfering RNA. Applications of the modified animals have provided evidence that genetically modified swine have the potential to overcome both physiologic and immunologic barriers that have previously impeded this field. The use of alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout animals as donors have shown marked improvements in xenograft survivals. SUMMARY: Techniques for genetic engineering of swine have been directed toward avoiding naturally existing cellular and antibody responses to species-specific antigens. Organs from genetically engineered animals have enjoyed markedly improved survivals in nonhuman primates, especially in protocols directed toward the induction of tolerance, presumably by avoiding immunization to new antigens.

Indexed as

Animals, Genetically ModifiedGenetic TechniquesOrgan TransplantationAnimalsGalactosyltransferasesGene Knockout TechniquesGraft RejectionGraft SurvivalHumansSpecies SpecificitySwineTransplantation, HeterologousTransplantation ToleranceTrisaccharidesalpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase 1, porcinealpha-galactosyl epitopeGalactosyltransferasesTrisaccharides

Identifiers

PMID19469029
PMCPMC2687522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.