Rejection of pig liver xenografts in patients with liver failure: Implications for xenotransplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pathophysiological state of rejection in liver xenotransplantation is poorly understood. Data from clinical pig liver perfusion suggest that pig livers might be rejected less vigorously than pig hearts or kidneys. Pig livers used in clinical xenoperfusions were exposed to blood from patients with liver failure. We have shown in an animal model that transplant recipients with liver failure are less capable of initiating hyperacute rejection of a xenografted liver than a healthy transplant recipient. The goal of this report is to examine the pathological characteristics of pig livers used in 2 clinical pig liver perfusions and combine this information with in vitro studies of pig-to-human liver xenotransplantation to determine whether the findings in the perfused pig livers could be explained in part by the diminished capacity of the patient with liver failure to respond to xenogeneic tissue. Pathological analysis of the perfused pig livers showed immunoglobulin M deposition in the sinusoids with little evidence of complement activation. Our in vitro studies showed that serum from patients with liver failure caused less injury to pig liver endothelium than serum from healthy subjects. Serum from patients with liver failure had similar levels of xenoreactive antibodies as serum from healthy humans. Incubation of serum from patients with liver failure with pig hepatic endothelial cells generated less iC3b, Bb fragment, and C5b-9 than serum from healthy subjects. We conclude that the altered injury in the perfused pig livers can be attributed to the relative complement deficiency that accompanies liver failure.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".