ArticleBlood advances2026
Engraftment of gene-edited hematopoietic stem cells after antibody-drug conjugate conditioning in nonhuman primates.
Article in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Combinatorial base editing couples disease correction with lineage amplification in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractHematopoietic stem cell (HSC) gene therapies provide lifelong benefit in numerous hematological diseases and disorders, but safety and toxicity remain a critical barrier for routine application. In the setting of immunodeficiency syndromes and infectious diseases such as HIV infection, conditioning regimens may exacerbate immune dysfunction, blunting, or impairing overall efficacy. Here, we conduct a head-to-head comparison of 2 novel antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) with a pyrrolobenzodiazepine payload for autologous transplant in rhesus macaques. These ADCs target either CD117 or CD45 and are benchmarked against the clinical standard busulfan. We quantified the extent of myeloablation and immunosuppression, time to hematopoietic recovery, long-term engraftment of CCR5 CRISPR-edited autologous HSCs, and resistance to infection when challenged with increasing concentrations of an HIV-like virus. Both ADCs enabled engraftment of CRISPR-edited HSCs, although with lower levels of long-term editing compared with busulfan. We observed myeloablation with similar times to hematopoietic recovery and preserved lymphocyte counts with all 3 conditioning regimens, but neither ADC conditioning nor busulfan enabled sufficient CCR5 editing for viral immunity. Although these results only apply to the specific ADC-conditioning protocols tested here, they are a step toward developing targeted strategies to engraft cells with therapeutic edits and highlight the need for further refinement of antibody-based selection.
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.