Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

SUCCESSFUL LONG-TERM TMA- AND REJECTION-FREE SURVIVAL OF A KIDNEY XENOGRAFT WITH TRIPLE XENOANTIGEN KNOCKOUT PLUS INSERTION OF MULTIPLE HUMAN TRANSGENES

Ma, David, Hirose, Takayuki, Rosales, Ivy, Sasaki, Hajime, Colvin, Robert, Markmann, Jim, Qin, Wenning, Kan, Yinan, Layer, Jacob, Youd, Michele, Westlin, William, Yang, Luhan, Kawai, Tatsuo·2020·Transplantation

Abstract

Usage of porcine organs is a potential solution to the shortage of organs for transplantation. However it continues to be hindered by multiple immunologic barriers. Recent advances in genome engineering technology allow for the generation of porcine organ donors with multiplex gene edits. Here we evaluated survival of kidneys from triple xenoantigen knockout pigs that contain multiple human transgenes (Pig 2.0) in a life-sustaining non-human primate renal xenotransplant model. Cynomolgus macaques received kidneys from either GTKO.hCD55 pigs (n=2; reference group) or Pig 2.0 (n=8) followed by bilateral native nephrectomy. All Pig 2.0 donors were triple antigen knockout and expressed human complement, inflammation, and immune regulatory transgenes at different levels in three variations (Pig 2.5, 2.9, 2.10). Recipients were treated with anti-rhesus ATG and anti-CD20 mAb as induction, followed by weekly anti-CD154 (hu5C8), daily mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and, in the reference and 2.9 groups, methylprednisolone and short-term sirolimus. Animals were followed clinically with lab tests, serial ultrasound and protocol biopsies. Regardless of gene modifications, graft survival clustered into three patterns – rapid rejection within three weeks (n=4), delayed rejection at two months (n=3), and longer-term surviving where the animals were euthanized for non-rejection related complications (n=2). One animal remains on study at day 69 without evidence of rejection on his first protocol…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.tp.0000698660.82982.ca

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ma, D., Hirose, T., Rosales, I., Sasaki, H., Colvin, R., Markmann, J., Qin, W., Kan, Y., Layer, J., Youd, M., Westlin, W., Yang, L., & Kawai, T.
Venue
Transplantation
Published
2020-09
Volume
104
Issue
S3
Pages
S82-S82
ISSN
0041-1337
Cited by
3
References
0
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review