Immunoglobulin G‐mediated regulation of the murine immune response to transfused red blood cells occurs in the absence of active immune suppression: implications for the mechanism of action of anti‐D in the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-D has been widely and effectively used in Rhesus blood group D negative mothers for the prevention of haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn; its mechanism of action however, often referred to as antibody-mediated immune suppression (AMIS), remains largely unresolved. We investigated, in a murine model, whether active immune suppression or clonal deletion mediated by anti-red blood cell (RBC) immunoglobulin G (IgG) could explain the phenomenon of AMIS. Transfusion of IgG-opsonized foreign RBCs (i.e. AMIS) strongly attenuated antibody responses compared to transfusion of untreated foreign RBCs. When the AMIS-mice were subsequently transfused with untreated RBCs, no immune suppression was observed at 5 and 35 days after AMIS induction; in fact, the mice responded to retransfusion with untreated RBCs in a manner that was characteristic of a secondary immune response. When IgG-opsonized RBCs were transfused concurrently with untreated RBCs, a dose-dependent reduction of the antibody response was observed. This work suggests that the attenuation of the antibody responsiveness by anti-RBC IgG is not associated with active immune suppression or clonal deletion at either the T-cell or B-cell level; rather, the effect appears more characteristic of B-cell unresponsiveness to IgG-opsonized RBCs. These results may have implications for the understanding of the mechanism of action of anti-D in haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".