SIMULTANEOUS ISLET LIVER ALLOTRANSPLANTATION IN RATS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In a recent article, Wang et al. (1) report the results of a study in which they “examine the effect of liver transplantation on islet allografts in a rat model by comparing the survival times of islet allografts with or without liver allografting” using a strain combination in which liver allografts are spontaneously accepted across a full MHC barrier. This study provides independent confirmation of a very similar set of experiments and results previously published by Wan et al. (2,3). Our brief but definitive study, performed as a offshoot while we were using combined liver islet isotransplantation as a model to study hepatotropic factors (4), differed only slightly from that of Wang et al. (1) as we utilized different rat strains and islet allotransplantation was via the portal vein rather than the renal subcapsular space. A closely related clinical study has also been performed (5). Surprisingly, none of this work was cited or discussed. In the early 1990s, Tzakis and Riccordi (5) working in Starzl’s laboratory reported the results of a series of combined islet and liver allografts performed in cancer patients having undergone an upper abdominal exenteration because of extensive abdominal spread. The success achieved with this series of clinical islet transplants far exceeded any results before that time and remained unparalleled for another 10 years. Their outstanding results could be logically explained in two ways. First, because the recipients were diabetic secondary to pancreatectomies, there was no autoimmune component to promote graft loss as might be expected in type 1 diabetic patients; this was the explanation invoked by most of the islet transplant community. A second possibility was that liver allografts promoted the survival of simultaneous same donor islet allografts; however, no analogous animal study had been done. Therefore, we performed a study in rats using a strain combination, Wistar-Furth (RT1u) to Lewis (RT1l), in which islet allografts were rapidly rejected [mean graft survival time was 5 days (n=6)] when embolized into the portal veins of streptozotocin-diabetic recipients and in which arterialized orthotopic liver transplants were spontaneously accepted without immunosuppression [mean graft survival time uniformly >90 days (n=10)]. When simultaneous islet/liver transplantations were performed (n=6), two rats remained normoglycemic with adequate liver function for >90 days, two normoglycemic rats died of liver allograft rejection at 13 or 30 days, and two rats became jaundiced/mildly diabetic and were killed at 41 or 63 days. In all six rats, viable islet grafts were identified histologically after death or sacrifice, indicating that in no instance had the islets rejected (2,3). These results, now confirmed by Wang et al. (1), demonstrated that simultaneous orthotopic liver transplantation protects same donor islets from allograft rejection, but that islet allografts are very immunogenic and can precipitate liver allograft rejection. The mechanistic studies by Wang et al. (1) pertaining to up-regulation of Fas ligand and T cell apoptosis are an interesting extension of this work. James R. Wright Jr.1 Weiming Yu
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».