ArticleHuman immunology2011
Lymphocyte activation markers may predict the presence of donor specific alloreactivity in pediatric living related liver transplant recipients.
Article in Human immunology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and predictive biomarkers of acute rejection after liver transplantation.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Review
- Evolving Approaches in the Identification of Allograft-Reactive T and B Cells in Mice and Humans.Transplantation · 2017Review
- Lymphocyte Activation Markers in Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipients.International journal of biomedical science : IJBS · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This is an observational study with the primary objective to measure donor-specific immune responses by pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients, using cell surface expression of lymphocyte activation markers and cytokine secretion in mixed lymphocyte reactions. The secondary objective was to demonstrate possible mechanism(s) involved in those who demonstrated donor-specific hyporesponsiveness. Study participants included 17 recipients, their respective parental donors, the non-donor parent, as well as unrelated third party individuals. Within the CD4(+) population, two distinct patterns of CD69 and CD71 expressions were observed: recipients who had a lower percentage of CD4(+)CD69(+) and CD4(+)CD71(+) cells after donor versus non-donor stimulation (therefore a donor/non-donor ratio <1); and recipients who had a higher percentage of CD4(+)CD69(+) and CD4(+)CD71(+) cells after donor versus non-donor stimulation (therefore a donor/non-donor ratio ≥1). Eight recipients had the above defined ratio of <1, with significantly decreased interferon-γ secretion after donor versus non-donor stimulation. CD4(+)CD25(hi.)CD127- regulatory T cells from these eight recipients suppressed donor and non-donor cell induced proliferation. Suppression of proliferation was partially abrogated by interleukin-2. In conclusion, CD69 and CD71 cell surface expression with interferon-γ secretion can be used to identify two distinct populations in pediatric LT recipients. Both active regulation and anergy underlie donor specific hyporesponsiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.