Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31792154›Full record

ReviewJournal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN2020

Clinical Pig Kidney Xenotransplantation: How Close Are We?

David K C Cooper, Hidetaka Hara, Hayato Iwase, Takayuki Yamamoto, Abhijit Jagdale, Vineeta Kumar, Roslyn Bernstein Mannon, Michael J Hanaway, Douglas J Anderson, Devin E Eckhoff

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. The use of transgenic animals for xenotransplantation: An update.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pigs: Large Animal Preclinical Cancer Models.World journal of oncology · 2024
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

David K C CooperDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and dkcooper@uabmc.edu.
Hidetaka HaraDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.ORCID 0000-0002-4179-7365
Hayato IwaseDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.
Takayuki YamamotoDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.
Abhijit JagdaleDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.
Vineeta KumarDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Roslyn Bernstein MannonDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Michael J HanawayDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.
Douglas J AndersonDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.ORCID 0000-0002-8919-2445
Devin E EckhoffDivision of Transplantation, Department of Surgery and.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

Prolonging life-supported pig kidney and heart graft survival in baboons by suppressing inflammationU19AI090959 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI COOPER, DAVID KC · 2010 to 2024
$26.3M
NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI090959
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with ESKD who would benefit from a kidney transplant face a critical and continuing shortage of kidneys from deceased human donors. As a result, such patients wait a median of 3.9 years to receive a donor kidney, by which time approximately 35% of transplant candidates have died while waiting or have been removed from the waiting list. Those of blood group B or O may experience a significantly longer waiting period. This problem could be resolved if kidneys from genetically engineered pigs offered an alternative with an acceptable clinical outcome. Attempts to accomplish this have followed two major paths: deletion of pig xenoantigens, as well as insertion of "protective" human transgenes to counter the human immune response. Pigs with up to nine genetic manipulations are now available. In nonhuman primates, administering novel agents that block the CD40/CD154 costimulation pathway, such as an anti-CD40 mAb, suppresses the adaptive immune response, leading to pig kidney graft survival of many months without features of rejection (experiments were terminated for infectious complications). In the absence of innate and adaptive immune responses, the transplanted pig kidneys have generally displayed excellent function. A clinical trial is anticipated within 2 years. We suggest that it would be ethical to offer a pig kidney transplant to selected patients who have a life expectancy shorter than the time it would take for them to obtain a kidney from a deceased human donor. In the future, the pigs will also be genetically engineered to control the adaptive immune response, thus enabling exogenous immunosuppressive therapy to be significantly reduced or eliminated.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationTransplantation, HeterologousAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedClinical Trials as TopicModels, AnimalPatient SelectionPrimatesSwineTissue and Organ Procurementclinical trialgenetically-engineeredkidneynonhuman primatespatientspigsselectionxenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID31792154
PMCPMC6934994
OpenAlexW2994124861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.