ArticleCell transplantation
Rethinking preclinical models for genetically engineered porcine red blood cell xenotransfusion.
Article in Cell transplantation. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genetically engineered porcine red blood cells (pRBCs) are emerging as a potential supplementary source of oxygen-carrying cells for transfusion medicine. Triple-knockout (TKO) pigs lacking major carbohydrate xenoantigens, including Gal, Neu5Gc, and Sd(a), have substantially reduced human antibody binding in vitro, and additional expression of human protective molecules such as CD55 and CD47 may further improve compatibility. However, the translational development of pRBC xenotransfusion is now constrained less by donor engineering alone than by the absence of an appropriate in vivo evaluation model. Old World nonhuman primates have historically served as essential preclinical models in xenotransplantation, but their cytidine monophosphate-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase (CMAH)-positive background and natural antibody repertoires may exaggerate immune barriers to TKO pRBCs that are not fully representative of humans. New World nonhuman primates, brain-dead human models, and eventually carefully regulated early-phase human studies each offer distinct advantages and limitations. In this Commentary, we argue that pRBC xenotransfusion requires a purpose-specific translational framework rather than reliance on a single preclinical model. Such a framework should integrate standardized compatibility testing, in vitro human assays, animal-based safety stress-testing, and, where ethically and legally feasible, short-term human reference models.
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.