MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dipeptide Boronic Acid, a Novel Proteasome Inhibitor, Prevents Islet-Allograft Rejection

2004· article· en· W2057628172 on OpenAlexaff
Yulian Wu, Bing Han, Hongyu Luo, Guixiu Shi, Jiangping Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsletCTL*Mixed lymphocyte reactionDipeptideTransplantationChemistryPharmacologyIn vivoCytotoxic T cellImmunosuppressionAllotransplantationProteasomeIn vitroImmunologyMedicineBiochemistryInternal medicineImmune systemInsulinPeptideT cellBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We have demonstrated previously in vitro that proteasome inhibitors suppress the proliferation, and induce the apoptosis, of activated T cells. This implies that they could be used as a novel category of immunosuppressants to block allograft rejection. Therefore, in this study, dipeptide boronic acid (DPBA) was tested for its effect on mouse islet transplantation. METHODS: First, DPBA was investigated in vitro for its effect on mouse mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) activity. DPBA was then used in vivo to treat mouse islet-allograft rejection. RESULTS: Both MLR and CTL were dose dependently suppressed by the proteasome inhibitor. A 17-day DPBA regimen resulted in islet-allograft survival in 50% of the recipients for a duration of up to 60 days, whereas the control group without immunosuppressants rejected the islet graft in 7 days. DPBA showed moderate side effects according to blood biochemistry; the function of endogenous islets after treatment appeared normal on glucose challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The proteasome inhibitor could inhibit islet-allograft rejection in mice without serious side effects at therapeutic dose levels. This has opened a new dimension in the development of better immunosuppression regimens for islet transplantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicPancreatic function and diabetesFrench-language works237,207