Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34015463›Full record

ReviewTransplant immunology2021

Aspects of histocompatibility testing in xenotransplantation.

Joseph M Ladowski, Julie Houp, Vera Hauptfeld-Dolejsek, Mariyam Javed, Hidetaka Hara, David K C Cooper

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transplant immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. [Xenotransplantation of solid organs].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Xenorecognition and costimulation of porcine endothelium-derived extracellular vesicles in initiating human porcine-specific T cell immune responses.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joseph M LadowskiXenotransplantation Program, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Julie HoupHistocompatibility Laboratory, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Vera Hauptfeld-DolejsekHistocompatibility Laboratory, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Mariyam JavedXenotransplantation Program, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Hidetaka HaraXenotransplantation Program, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. Electronic address: harahjp@icloud.com.
David K C CooperXenotransplantation Program, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Xenotran (United States) · USUniversity 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

Xenotransplantation, using genetically-modified pigs for clinical organ transplantation, is a solution to the organ shortage. The biggest barrier to clinical implementation is the antigenicity of pig cells. Humans possess preformed antibody to pig cells that initiate antibody-mediated rejection of pig organs in primates. Advances in genetic engineering have led to the development of a pig lacking the three known glycan xenoantigens (triple-knockout [TKO] pigs). A significant number of human sera demonstrate no antibody binding to TKO pig cells. As a result of the TKO pig's low antigen expression, survival of life-supporting pig organs in immunosuppressed nonhuman primates has significantly increased, and hope has been renewed for clinical trials of xenotransplantation. It is important to understand the context in which xenotransplantation's predecessor, allotransplantation, has been successful, and the steps needed for the success of xenotransplantation. Successful allotransplantation has been based on two main immunological approaches - (i) adequate immunosuppressive therapy, and (ii) careful histocompatibility matching. In vivo studies suggest that the available immunosuppressive regimens are adequate to suppress the human anti-pig cellular response. Methods to evaluate and screen patients for the first clinical xenotransplantation trial are the next challenge. The goal of this review is to summarize the history of histocompatibility testing, and the available tools that can be utilized to determine xenograft histocompatibility.

Indexed as

Transplantation, HeterologousAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedAntibodies, HeterophileAntigens, HeterophileCells, CulturedGene Knockout TechniquesHistocompatibilityHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHistocompatibility TestingHLA AntigensHumansPolysaccharidesSwineTissue and Organ ProcurementAntibodies, HeterophileAntigens, HeterophileHistocompatibility Antigens Class IHLA AntigensPolysaccharidesswine leukocyte antigenHistocompatibilityHuman leukocyte antigensMajor histocompatibility complexSwine leukocyte antigensXenotransplantation

Identifiers

PMID34015463
PMCPMC8197754
OpenAlexW3161678790

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.