Dystrophin Expression in Muscles of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Patients After High-Density Injections of Normal Myogenic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A clinical trial was conducted to test a new protocol of normal muscle precursor cell (MPC) allotransplantation in skeletal muscles of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Cultured MPCs obtained from one of the patient's parents were implanted in 0.25 or 1 cm of a Tibialis anterior in 9 patients with DMD. MPC injections were placed 1 to 2 mm from each other, and a similar pattern of saline injections was done in the contralateral muscle. The patients were immunosuppressed with tacrolimus. Muscle biopsies were performed at the injected sites 4 weeks later. In the biopsies of the cell-grafted sites, there were myofibers expressing donor's dystrophin in 8 patients. The percentage of myofibers expressing donor's dystrophin varied from 3.5% to 26%. Evidence of small myofiber neoformation was observed in some patients. Donor-derived dystrophin transcripts were detected by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in the cell-grafted sites in all patients. The protocol of immunosuppression was sufficient to obtain these results, although it is not certain whether acute rejection was efficiently controlled in all the cases. In conclusion, intramuscular allotransplantation of normal MPCs can induce the expression of donor-derived dystrophin in skeletal muscles of patients with DMD, although this expression is restricted to the sites of MPC injection.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".