ArticleFrontiers in immunology2024
Investigation of the efficacy and safety of wild- type and triple-gene knockout pig RBC transfusions in nonhuman primates.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2024. 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.
- Multiple genetic engineering of porcine red blood cells improves compatibility with human blood.iScience · 2026Article
- Brain-dead humans as preclinical reference models for xenotransfusion: bridging nonhuman primates and clinical applications throughFrontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Targeted knock-in of human immune-regulatory genes into the porcine GGTA1 exon 4 reveals divergent expression on red blood cell membranes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Complement Activation and Hemolysis in Non-human Primates Following Transfusion of Genetically Modified Pig Red Blood Cells.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Rethinking preclinical models for genetically engineered porcine red blood cell xenotransfusion.Cell transplantationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Decreasing rates of blood donation and close margins between blood supply and demand pose challenges in healthcare. Genetically engineered pig red blood cells (pRBCs) have been explored as alternatives to human RBCs for transfusion, and triple-gene knockout (TKO) modification improves the compatibility of pRBCs with human blood Methods: Blood from O-type WT and TKO pigs was processed to produce pRBCs for transfusion, which were transfused or not into NHPs (n=4 per group: WT, TKO, and control) after 25% total blood volume withdrawal: their biological responses were compared. Hematological, biochemical, and immunological parameters were measured before, immediately after, and at intervals following transfusion. Two months later, a second transfusion was performed in three NHPs of the transfusion group. Results: Transfusion of both WT- and TKO-pRBCs significantly improved RBC counts, hematocrit, and hemoglobin levels up to the first day post-transfusion, compared to the controls. The transfusion groups showed instant complement activation and rapid elicitation of anti-pig antibodies, as well as elevated liver enzyme and bilirubin levels post-transfusion. Despite the higher agglutination titers with WT-pRBCs in the pre-transfusion crossmatch, the differences between the WT and TKO groups were not remarkable except for less impairment of liver function in the TKO group. After the second transfusion, more pronounced adverse responses without any hematological gain were observed. Conclusions: WT- and TKO-pRBC transfusions effectively increased hematologic parameters on the first day, with rapid clearance from circulation thereafter. However, pRBC transfusion triggers strong antibody responses, limiting the benefits of the pRBC transfusion and increasing the risk of adverse reactions.
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.