ArticleAnimal cells and systems2023
Comparative transcriptome analysis between long- and short-term survival after pig-to-monkey cardiac xenotransplantation reveals differential heart failure development.
Article in Animal cells and systems, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immune cell landscape in a human decedent receiving a pig liver xenograft.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Long-read sequencing reveals novel transcript diversity inAnimal cells and systems · 2025Article
- Use of regulatory cells for achieving functional tolerance of pig heart xenotransplants in humans: a literature review.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- "A broken heart" becomes sleepless, literally.Molecules and cells · 2024Article
- Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Cardiac Xenograft Failure in a Pig-to-Non-Human Primate Model Identifies NF-κB as a Critical Immunomodulatory Target.XenotransplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac xenotransplantation is the potential treatment for end-stage heart failure, but the allogenic organ supply needs to catch up to clinical demand. Therefore, genetically-modified porcine heart xenotransplantation could be a potential alternative. So far, pig-to-monkey heart xenografts have been studied using multi-transgenic pigs, indicating various survival periods. However, functional mechanisms based on survival period-related gene expression are unclear. This study aimed to identify the differential mechanisms between pig-to-monkey post-xenotransplantation long- and short-term survivals. Heterotopic abdominal transplantation was performed using a donor CD46-expressing GTKO pig and a recipient cynomolgus monkey. RNA-seq was performed using samples from POD60 XH from monkey and NH from age-matched pigs, D35 and D95. Gene-annotated DEGs for POD60 XH were compared with those for POD9 XH (Park et al. 2021). DEGs were identified by comparing gene expression levels in POD60 XH versus either D35 or D95 NH. 1,804 and 1,655 DEGs were identified in POD60 XH versus D35 NH and POD60 XH versus D95 NH, respectively. Overlapped 1,148 DEGs were annotated and compared with 1,348 DEGs for POD9 XH. Transcriptomic features for heart failure and inhibition of T cell activation were observed in both long (POD60)- and short (POD9)-term survived monkeys. Only short-term survived monkey showed heart remodeling and regeneration features, while long-term survived monkey indicated multi-organ failure by neural and hormonal signaling as well as suppression of B cell activation. Our results reveal differential heart failure development and survival at the transcriptome level and suggest candidate genes for specific signals to control adverse cardiac xenotransplantation effects.
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.