Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38272935›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Direct comparison of canine and human immune responses using transcriptomic and functional analyses.

Lyndah Chow, William Wheat, Dominique Ramirez, Renata Impastato, Steven Dow

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. A New Method of Canine CD4International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Tocilizumab binds to canine IL-6 receptor and elicitsFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  18. Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lyndah ChowFlint Animal Cancer Center, Department of Clinical Sciences and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1678, Fort Collins, CO, USA. Lyndah.Chow@colostate.edu.
William WheatFlint Animal Cancer Center, Department of Clinical Sciences and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1678, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Dominique RamirezFlint Animal Cancer Center, Department of Clinical Sciences and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1678, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Renata ImpastatoFlint Animal Cancer Center, Department of Clinical Sciences and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1678, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Steven DowFlint Animal Cancer Center, Department of Clinical Sciences and Department of Microbiology, Immunology, and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1678, Fort Collins, CO, USA. sdow@colostate.edu.
Colorado State University · USUniversity of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

Optimizing Novel Immunotherapy Combinations Targeting the Tumor Microenvironment in Canine Spontaneous OsteosarcomaU01CA224182 · NCI · COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DOW, STEVEN W., LONDON, CHERYL A · 2017 to 2022
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA224182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The canine spontaneous cancer model is increasingly utilized to evaluate new combined cancer immunotherapy approaches. While the major leukocyte subsets and phenotypes are closely related in dogs and humans, the functionality of T cells and antigen presenting cells in the two species has not been previously compared in detail. Such information would be important in interpreting immune response data and evaluating the potential toxicities of new cancer immunotherapies in dogs. To address this question, we used in vitro assays to compare the transcriptomic, cytokine, and proliferative responses of activated canine and human T cells, and also compared responses in activated macrophages. Transcriptomic analysis following T cell activation revealed shared expression of 515 significantly upregulated genes and 360 significantly downregulated immune genes. Pathway analysis identified 33 immune pathways shared between canine and human activated T cells, along with 34 immune pathways that were unique to each species. Activated human T cells exhibited a marked Th1 bias, whereas canine T cells were transcriptionally less active overall. Despite similar proliferative responses to activation, canine T cells produced significantly less IFN-γ than human T cells. Moreover, canine macrophages were significantly more responsive to activation by IFN-γ than human macrophages, as reflected by co-stimulatory molecule expression and TNF-α production. Thus, these studies revealed overall broad similarity in responses to immune activation between dogs and humans, but also uncovered important key quantitative and qualitative differences, particularly with respect to T cell responses, that should be considered in designing and evaluating cancer immunotherapy studies in dogs.

Indexed as

CytokinesNeoplasmsAnimalsDogsGene Expression ProfilingHumansLymphocyte ActivationT-LymphocytesCytokines

Identifiers

PMID38272935
PMCPMC10811214
OpenAlexW4391239473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.