Accommodation after lung xenografting from hamster to rat1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term xenograft survival can be achieved in hamster hearts transplanted into rats treated with cobra venom factor (CVF) and cyclosporine A (CsA). This phenomenon of "accommodation" is associated with expression of protective genes such as bcl-2, bcl-X(L), and heme-oxygenase-1. We examined whether accommodation could be induced in hamster-to-rat lung xenografts and whether the pattern of protective genes is similar to cardiac xenografts. METHODS: We used hamster-to-rat cardiac and lung xenotransplantation models. Cardiac xenotransplants were treated with CVF+CsA and compared with untreated controls. Lung xenotransplants were treated with either CVF+CsA or FK506 and cyclophosphamide (Cp) and compared with untreated controls. All recipients were killed by 21 days after transplantation. We examined graft survival and protein expression of protective genes, and we performed histologic and immunohistologic analyses. RESULTS: Rejection occurred rapidly in untreated rats. CVF+CsA or FK506+Cp treatment significantly influenced graft survival. Eight of 12 CVF+CsA-treated heart transplants survived 21 days. Seven of 16 CVF+CsA-treated lung grafts and five of 12 FK506+Cp-treated lung xenografts survived 21 days. We observed significant protein expression of bcl-2, bcl-X(L), and heme-oxygenase-1 in cardiac xenografts treated with CVF+CsA at 2, 14, and 21 days after transplantation, compared with normal hamster hearts. We also observed significant expression of these proteins in lung xenografts treated with either CVF+CsA or FK506+Cp at 21 days after transplantation, compared with normal lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Accommodation may be a general phenomenon for all organs, mediated through protective genes. Induction of accommodation does not require disruption of the complement system.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".