Critical Roles of Memory T Cells and Antidonor Immunoglobulin in Rejection of Allogeneic Bone Marrow Cells in Sensitized Recipient Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Allosensitization is a major risk factor for graft failure in clinical bone marrow transplantation, even with an human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched combination under radiation-based conditioning regimens. The critical components of immunological memory in donor bone marrow graft rejection in allosensitized hosts remain unclear at present. METHODS: C57BL/6-recipient mice, which had been intraperitoneally injected with splenocytes from donor C3H mice on day -35 (sensitized recipients), had been lethally irradiated with 10-Gy whole-body irradiation and were intravenously injected with T-cell-depleted bone marrow cells (TCD-BMC) from C3H mice or third-party SJL mice. RESULTS: Lethally irradiated recipient mice, which had been sensitized by donor splenocytes 5 weeks before the transplantation of TCD-BMC, completely rejected the donor-BMC in a donor-specific manner, whereas none of the nonsensitized recipient mice, all of which showed full allogeneic chimerism, rejected the donor TCD-BMC. Antibody-mediated T cell and/or Natural Killer (NK) cell depletion did not improve the ability of the sensitized recipients to overcome the rejection even when a megadose of TCD-BMC was administered to the sensitized recipients. Furthermore, BMC rejection occurred in sensitized B cell-deficient mice. In adoptive transfer experiments, naive mice, which received a transfer of purified T cells from sensitized mice, rejected the donor BMC, but not those from nonsensitized mice. Moreover, naive mice, which received a transfer of serum containing antidonor immunoglobulin, rejected the donor BMC. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that alloreactive memory T cells and antidonor immunoglobulin independently function to reject donor BMC in sensitized recipients.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".