Trial reportCytotherapy2013
Differential gene expression profile of first-generation and second-generation rapamycin-resistant allogeneic T cells.
Trial report in Cytotherapy, 2013. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Manufacturing Differences Affect Human Bone Marrow Stromal Cell Characteristics and Function: Comparison of Production Methods and Products from Multiple Centers.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- High-Dose Sirolimus and Immune-Selective Pentostatin plus Cyclophosphamide Conditioning Yields Stable Mixed Chimerism and Insufficient Graft-versus-Tumor Responses.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2015Article
- Rapamycin-resistant effector T-cell therapy.Immunological reviews · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND
aimsWe completed a phase II clinical trial evaluating rapamycin-resistant allogeneic T cells (T-rapa) and now have evaluated a T-rapa product manufactured in 6 days (T-rapa(6)) rather than 12 days (T-Rapa(12)).
methodsUsing gene expression microarrays, we addressed our hypothesis that the two products would express a similar phenotype. The products had similar phenotypes using conventional comparison methods of cytokine secretion and surface markers.
resultsUnsupervised analysis of 34,340 genes revealed that T-rapa(6) and T-rapa(12) products clustered together, distinct from culture input CD4(+) T cells. Statistical analysis of T-rapa(6) products revealed differential expression of 19.3% of genes (n = 6641) compared with input CD4(+) cells; similarly, 17.8% of genes (n = 6147) were differentially expressed between T-rapa(12) products and input CD4(+) cells. Compared with input CD4(+) cells, T-rapa(6) and T-rapa(12) products were similar in terms of up-regulation of major gene families (cell cycle, stress response, glucose catabolism, DNA metabolism) and down-regulation (inflammatory response, immune response, apoptosis, transcriptional regulation). However, when directly compared, T-rapa(6) and T-rapa(12) products showed differential expression of 5.8% of genes (n = 1994; T-rapa(6) vs. T-rapa(12)).
conclusionsSecond-generation T-rapa(6) cells possess a similar yet distinct gene expression profile relative to first-generation T-rapa(12) cells and may mediate differential effects after adoptive transfer.
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.