Central Tolerance to Myogenic Cell Transplants Does Not Include Muscle Neoantigens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a fatal genetic disease caused by lack of dystrophin. Myogenic cell transplantation (MT), a potential therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, can restore dystrophin expression in muscles. Because allogeneic MT is highly resistant to peripheral tolerance, we proposed to induce central tolerance. However, given its immunogenicity, we asked whether central tolerance to donor major histocompatibility complex would allow long-term expression of dystrophin, a tissue-specific neoantigen in dystrophic recipients. METHODS: Central tolerance was induced in C57BL/10J mdx (dystrophic) mice by allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) after conditioning with either lethal total body irradiation (TBI) or an established nonmyeloablative protocol (anti-CD154, anti-CD8 mAbs, and low-dose TBI). Recipients subsequently received donor-strain MT or skin grafts. RESULTS: Long-term hematopoietic chimeras generated using either lethal TBI or the nonmyeloablative regimen were tolerant to donor skin grafts and both primary and secondary donor MT (>90 days). Myogenic cell transplantation survival was decreased when chimerism was transient, which was most common with nonmyeloablative conditioning and fully rather than haplo-mismatched donors. Interestingly, regardless of conditioning, MT was associated with localized muscle infiltration with Foxp3CD4, CD25CD4, and PerforinCD8 cells, whereas skin grafts lacked infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: Central tolerance achieved using regimens that eliminate nearly all endogenous peripheral lymphocytes (i.e., lethal irradiation) or a nonmyeloablative protocol that depleted peripheral CD8 cells, results in lymphocytic infiltration in muscles that received MT but not in skin allografts. This suggests that muscle-specific infiltration may result from lack of negative selection for peripheral neoantigens in the thymus after BMT and that tolerance after MT may rely on peripheral regulatory mechanisms.
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".