Recipient T Cells Mediate Reperfusion Injury after Lung Transplantation in the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leukocytes have been implicated in ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury of the lung, but the individual role of T cells has not been explored. Recent evidence in mice suggests that T cells may play a role in IR injury. Using a syngeneic (Lewis to Lewis) rat lung transplant model, we observed that recipient CD4(+) T cells infiltrated lung grafts within 1 h of reperfusion and up-regulated the expression of CD25 over the ensuing 12 h. Nude rats (rnu/rnu) and heterozygous rats (rnu/+) were used to determine the role of T cells in IR injury. No significant difference in lung function was observed between nude and heterozygous recipient rats after 2 h of reperfusion. However, after 12 h of reperfusion, recipient nude rats had significantly higher oxygenation and lower peak airway pressure than recipient heterozygous rats. This was associated with significantly lower levels of IFN-gamma in transplanted lung tissue of recipient nude rats. Reconstitution of recipient nude rats with T cells from heterozygous rats restored IR injury after 12 h of reperfusion. The effect of T cells was independent of neutrophil recruitment and activation in the transplanted lung. These results demonstrate that recipient T cells are activated and mediate IR injury during lung transplantation in rats.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".