Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40190036›Full record

ArticleCell proliferation2025

Production and Functional Verification of 8-Gene (GGTA1, CMAH, β4GalNT2, hCD46, hCD55, hCD59, hTBM, hCD39)-Edited Donor Pigs for Xenotransplantation.

Jiaoxiang Wang, Kaixiang Xu, Tao Liu, Heng Zhao, Muhammad Ameen Jamal, Gen Chen, Xiaoying Huo, Chang Yang, Deling Jiao, Taiyun Wei and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell proliferation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

24 authors.

Jiaoxiang WangYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Kaixiang XuYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Tao LiuFirst Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Heng ZhaoYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Muhammad Ameen JamalYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Gen ChenGuizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Xiaoying HuoYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Chang YangYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Deling JiaoYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Taiyun WeiYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Hanfei HuangFirst Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Hongfang ZhaoYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Jianxiong GuoYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Fengchong WangYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Xiong ZhangYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Kai LiuYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Siming QuFirst Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Gang WangDepartment of Pharmacology, Innovative Institute of Basic Medical Sciences of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Hui GuoInstitute of Organ Transplantation, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Gang ChenInstitute of Organ Transplantation, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Hong-Ye ZhaoYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.
Zhong ZengFirst Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China.
Kefeng DouDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Air Force Medical University, Xi'an, China.
Hong-Jiang WeiYunnan Province Key Laboratory for Porcine Gene Editing and Xenotransplantation, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5663-1093

Funding

173 Basic Strengthening Program 2023-JCJQ-ZD-118-00Major Science and Technology Project of Yunnan Province 202102AA310047National Key Research and Development Program of China 2019YFA0110700
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene-edited (GE) pig-to-human xenotransplantation continues to make breakthroughs, but which kind of gene combination is suitable for organ-specific transplantation remains unclear. In this study, we utilised CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology, PiggyBac transposon system, and serial somatic cell cloning technology to develop GTKO/CMAHKO/β4GalNT2KO/hCD46/hCD55/hCD59/hCD39/hTBM 8 gene-edited cloned (GEC) donor pigs and performed pig-to-non-human primate (NHP) transplantation to evaluate the effectiveness of these GEC pigs. The 8-GEC pigs were obtained by recloning with a 33-day-old 8-GEC fetus with O blood type, which was generated after cell transfection, screening of cell colonies, and somatic cell cloning. Molecular identification at DNA, mRNA, and protein levels confirmed successful 8-gene editing. Three copies of transgenes were identified by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and whole genome sequencing, which were inserted into the introns of pig RFTN1 and MYO10 genes, as well as the intergenic region between PRLR and LOC110257300 genes of these 8-GEC pigs. The 8-GEC pigs also exhibited the ability of germline transmission when mated with our previously generated 4-GEC male pigs. Moreover, antigen-antibody binding assay and complement-dependent cytotoxicity assay demonstrated that 8-gene editing effectively reduced the immune incompatibility and kidney xenograft from 8-GEC pigs survived for 15 and 17 days in two NHPs, respectively. Postoperatively, the recipient serum antibodies IgA, IgG and IgM, complements C3 and C4, coagulation indicators PT, APTT, TT and FIB, as well as most electrolytes and liver function indicators remained relatively stable. Serum creatinine was normal within 10 days post operation. However, the kidney xenograft developed active antibody-mediated rejection at necropsy, characterised by the deposition of antibodies IgG and IgM, as well as complements C4d, C3c and C5b-C9, infiltration of CD68

Indexed as

Gene EditingTransplantation, HeterologousAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCD59 AntigensCRISPR-Cas SystemsGalactosyltransferasesHumansMembrane Cofactor ProteinMixed Function OxygenasesN-AcetylgalactosaminyltransferasesSwinealpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase 1, porcinebeta-1,4-N-acetyl-galactosaminyl transferase 2CD59 AntigensCMPacetylneuraminate monooxygenaseGalactosyltransferasesMembrane Cofactor ProteinMixed Function OxygenasesN-Acetylgalactosaminyltransferasescomplement regulatory proteinkidney xenotransplantationpigthrombomodulinxenoantigens

Identifiers

PMID40190036
PMCPMC12414638

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.