In Vivo Recognition by the Host Adaptive Immune System of Microencapsulated Xenogeneic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microencapsulation is under consideration as a means of enabling pancreatic islet transplantation. To understand better the ongoing destructive host response, we examined whether the adaptive immune system of the recipient recognized polymer-encapsulated xenogeneic cells implanted intraperitoneally. METHODS: Balb/c mice were implanted with xenogeneic Chinese hamster ovary cells, inside and outside poly(hydroxyethyl methacrylate-methyl methacrylate) microcapsules, and responses were compared with xenografted Chinese hamster skin (positive control). Capsules were localized within an agarose rod. Splenocyte proliferation upon rechallenge in vitro, antibody titer in serum, and Th1/2 polarization (assessed by interleukin-4 and interferon-gamma in supernatants of antigen-challenged splenocytes and immunoglobulin [Ig]G1 and IgG2a antibody isotypes in serum) were measured. RESULTS: Encapsulation did not prevent a strong recipient antibody response. Splenocyte proliferation in vitro did not differ after priming by implanted cells, inside or outside capsules. Thus, the capsule membrane did not prevent indirect recognition of shed antigens. However, after 10 days of implantation, proliferation was lower than that induced by skin grafts, although this difference disappeared by 2 months. This transient T-cell suppression was unexpected because encapsulated cell viability was already compromised by 10 days. The influence of Th1/2 bias did not explain the observed suppression. Cells inside capsules elicited a consistent Th2 response, whereas cells outside capsules elicited a mixed response, and skin xenografts showed an initial Th2 response that became mixed by 2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Encapsulation does not prevent host immune responses, but the inflammatory response to the implanted biomaterials or xenogeneic cells may be responsible both for encapsulated cell death and transient T-cell suppression.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".