Paradoxical Aspects of Rapamycin Immunobiology in Transplantation
Open accessAbstract
Rapamycin has long been considered an immunosuppressive agent due to its antiproliferative effects on immune cells, and is currently used as a component of antirejection regimens in transplantation. Despite the large number of mechanistic and clinical studies investigating the impact of rapamycin on cell-mediated immunity, several paradoxes concerning rapamycin immunobiology remain. In particular, emerging evidence suggests that under certain circumstances rapamycin can exert immunostimulatory effects, boosting T cell responses in the face of pathogen infections and vaccines. Here, we review recent findings concerning the contradictory outcomes of rapamycin induced mTOR inhibition on CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell responses in transplantation and protective immunity. These studies suggest that the conditions under which T cells are stimulated can profoundly modify the impact of rapamycin on antigen-specific T cell responses. Thus, further investigation into the cellular and molecular pathways underlying the dichotomous effects of rapamycin in transplantation is required to harness the full potential of this immunomodulatory agent to promote graft survival and maximize protective immunity.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Rapamycin and rapalogs are immunosuppressive at high doses but exert immunostimulatory effects at lower doses.
“While they are immunosuppressive at high doses, these compounds exert immunostimulatory effects at lower doses170.”
From SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and the aging immune system (2021) · cites this paper as [170]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 75
- Authors
- Ferrer, I. R., Araki, K., & Ford, M. L.
- Affiliations
- Emory University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ford, M.L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-04
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 654-659
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3685502
- OpenAlex
- W1504906459
- Cited by
- 75
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 0.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Transplantation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI139675, AI-81789, R56AI081789, R01AI073707, AI073707)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Transplantation › Renal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Transplantation: Methods and Outcomes
- Keywords
- rapamycin, mTOR inhibition, immunosuppression, transplantation, T cell response, CD4+ T cells, CD8+ T cells, immunostimulation, antirejection therapy, graft survival, protective immunity, vaccine response, pathogen infection
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Graft Survival, Humans, Immunity, Cellular, Immunosuppressive Agents, T-Lymphocytes, Organ Transplantation, Sirolimus
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