Evidence map›Paper›PMID 9824510›Full record

ArticleImmunology1998

Characterization in vitro and in vivo of the pig analogue of human CD59 using new monoclonal antibodies.

S M Hanna, G T Williams, C W Van Den Berg, B P Morgan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Immunology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

S M HannaDepartment of Medical Biochemistry, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK.
G T Williams
C W Van Den Berg
B P Morgan
University of Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CD59 is the sole characterized regulator of the complement membrane attack complex in humans. It is very widely and abundantly distributed, being present on all circulating cells, endothelia and epithelia, and in most tissues. CD59 analogues in rodents are distributed similarly. Interest in complement regulation in the pig has developed out of the current enthusiasm to exploit this species as a donor in xenotransplantation of organs to humans. We have recently isolated and cloned the pig analogue of human CD59. We here report the development and characterization of monoclonal antibodies against pig CD59. We have used these antibodies to develop efficient methods for the purification of pig CD59 to homogeneity from erythrocyte membranes and have obtained new information on the structure and function of the purified protein. The antibodies were found to function well in immunohistochemistry and have been used to perform a comprehensive survey of the expression and distribution of pig CD59 on cells and in organs of normal pigs. Pig CD59, like human CD59, is broadly expressed but there are some striking differences in tissue distribution, notably the apparent lack of pig CD59 on circulating platelets and on a subset of leucocytes in blood and lymphoid organs. The reported findings have important implications for the current approaches to avoiding complement-mediated hyperacute rejection in pig-to-human xenografts.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntigens, DifferentiationBinding, CompetitiveCD59 AntigensChromatography, AffinityElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelFlow CytometryHumansImmunoenzyme TechniquesSpecies SpecificitySwineTissue DistributionAntibodies, MonoclonalAntigens, DifferentiationCD59 Antigens

Identifiers

PMID9824510
PMCPMC1364413
OpenAlexW1997755184

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.