ArticleXenotransplantation2018
CD4+CD25
Article in Xenotransplantation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- PD-L1Technology in cancer research & treatmentTrial
- Review
- Use of regulatory cells for achieving functional tolerance of pig heart xenotransplants in humans: a literature review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Regulatory T cell therapy for xenotransplantation, what perspectives?Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Galectin-1 is associated with hematopoietic cell engraftment in murine MHC-mismatched allotransplantation.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Graft rejection in paediatric congenital heart disease.Translational pediatrics · 2023Review
- Genetic engineering of pigs for xenotransplantation to overcome immune rejection and physiological incompatibilities: The first clinical steps.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Xenotransplantation: A New Era.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Protection of transplants against antibody-mediated injuries: from xenotransplantation to allogeneic transplantation, mechanisms and therapeutic insights.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Donor Recipient Chimeric Cells Induce Chimerism and Extend Survival of Vascularized Composite Allografts.Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis · 2021Article
- Article
- Xenotransplantation tolerance: applications for recent advances in modified swine.Current opinion in organ transplantation · 2018Review
- Toward a solution for cardiac failure in the newborn.Xenotransplantation · 2018Review
- CD27-Expressing Xenoantigen-Expanded Human Regulatory T Cells Are Efficient in Suppressing Xenogeneic Immune Response.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCD4+CD25
methodsHeterotopic cardiac xenotransplantation was performed on baboons using hearts obtained from GTKO.hCD46 (n = 8) and GTKO.hCD46.TBM (n = 5) genetically modified pigs. Modified immunosuppression regimen included antithymocyte globulin (ATG), anti-CD20, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), cobra venom factor (CVF), and costimulation blockade (anti-CD154/anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody). FACS analysis was performed on PBLs labeled with anti-human CD4, CD25, and FoxP3 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) to analyze the percentage of Treg cells in six baboons that survived longer than 2 months (range: 42-945 days) after receiving a pig cardiac xenograft.
resultsTotal WBC count was low due to immunosuppression in baboons who received cardiac xenograft from GTKO.hCD46 and GTKO.hCD46.hTBM donor pigs. However, absolute numbers of CD4+CD25
conclusionOur results suggest that regulatory T (Treg) cells may contribute to preventing or delaying xenograft rejection by controlling the activation and expansion of donor-reactive T cells, thereby masking the antidonor immune response, leading to long-term survival of cardiac xenografts.
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.