ArticleXenotransplantation
In vitro and in vivo immune assessments of genetically-engineered pig skin grafts in New World (squirrel) monkeys.
Article in Xenotransplantation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Half a million patients in the USA alone require treatment for burns annually. Following an extensive burn, it may not be possible to provide sufficient autografts in a single setting. Genetic manipulations (GM) of pigs offer the possibility of reducing primate humoral and cellular rejection of pig skin xenografts and thus extending graft survival. We compared the survival of skin grafts from pigs with 9-GM with that of autografts and allografts in squirrel monkeys. Monitoring for rejection was by (1) macroscopic examination, (2) histopathological examination of skin biopsies, and (3) measurement of anti-monkey and anti-pig IgM and IgG antibodies. Autografts (n = 5) survived throughout the 28 days of follow-up without histopathological features of rejection. Median survival of allografts (n = 6) was 14 days and of pig xenografts (n = 12) 21 days. Allotransplantation was associated with an increase in anti-monkey IgM, but the anticipated subsequent rise in IgG had not yet occurred at the time of euthanasia. Pig grafts were associated with increases in anti-pig IgM and IgG. In all cases, histopathologic features of rejection were similar. 9-GM pig skin xenografts survive at least as long as monkey skin allografts (and trended to survive longer), suggesting that they are a realistic clinical option for the temporary treatment of burns. Although monkeys with pig skin grafts developed anti-pig IgM and IgG antibodies, these did not cross-react with monkey antigens, indicating that a primary 9-GM pig skin graft would not be detrimental to a subsequent monkey skin allograft.
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.