Acceptance of Third‐Party Cardiac but not Skin Allografts Induced by Neonatal Exposure to Semi‐Allogeneic Lymphohematopoietic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonatal tolerance is exclusively donor-specific when assessed by skin allograft survival and in vitro alloreactivity assays. In contrast, we reported previously that acceptance of primarily vascularized cardiac allografts was not donor-specific in C3H/He (C3H, H-2(k)) mice treated as neonates with BALB/c-derived (BALB, H-2(d)) lymphohematopoietic cells, but included third-party C57BL/10 (B10, H-2(b)) allografts. The present study examined whether this unusual pattern is limited to heart grafts in this strain combination, and defined the relative importance of the donor cell H-2(d) haplotype for third-party cardiac allograft acceptance. C3H neonates were injected with (C3HxBALB)F1 bone marrow and spleen cells. Tolerance was assessed at age 8-10 weeks by transplantation of heart or skin allografts from several donor strains, and by in vitro assays of proliferation and cytotoxicity. Additionally, cells from H-2(d) and H-2(b)-expressing strains on BALB or non-BALB minor histocompatibility (miH) antigen backgrounds were tested as tolerizing inocula. Prolonged survival of cardiac grafts from all donor strains was observed in neonatally treated mice, whereas skin grafting and in vitro assays demonstrated donor-specific hyporesponsiveness. Both H-2(d) haplotype and non-H-2 miH background of graft donor and tolerizing cell donor were important to third-party cardiac allograft acceptance. These results suggest that the functional alteration in alloreactivity induced by neonatal alloantigen exposure depends partly on method of assessment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".