MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interferon-γ and Donor MHC Class I Control Alternative Macrophage Activation and Activin Expression in Rejecting Kidney Allografts: A Shift in the Th1-Th2 Paradigm

2008· article· en· W2082127519 on OpenAlexafffund
Konrad S. Famulski, B. Sis, L. Billesberger, Philip F. Halloran

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGenome AlbertaAstellas PharmaUniversity of AlbertaRoche Organ Transplant Research FoundationKidney Foundation of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsMedicineImmunologyMajor histocompatibility complexMHC class IICD74InterferonKidneyMHC class IImmune systemInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organ allografts deficient in interferon-γ (Ifng) or major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I products develop accelerated necrosis when rejection develops, depending on perforin and granzymes. Thus Ifng-induced donor class I products deliver inhibitory signals to host inflammatory cells. We used microarrays to investigate whether Ifng-induced donor class I products also control inflammation patterns in mouse kidney allografts. Compared to wild-type (WT) allografts, many transcripts were increased in both Ifng-deficient allografts (Ifng-suppressed transcripts [GSTs]) and class I-deficient allografts (class I-suppressed transcripts [CISTs]), with 73% overlap between GSTs and CISTs. Some GSTs and CISTs reflected increased necrosis, including known injury-induced transcripts. However, many GSTs and CISTs were independent of perforin, granzymes and necrosis, and were associated with alternative macrophage activation (AMA) (e.g. arginase I [Arg1], macrophage elastase [Mmp12] and macrophage mannose receptor 1 [Mrc1]). AMA transcripts were induced despite absence of host interleukin (IL)4 and IL13 receptors. The AMA inducer may be activins, whose genes (inhibin A [InhbA] and inhibin B [InhbB]) were increased in all allografts with AMA. We conclude that in allograft rejection, Ifng acts via donor Ifng receptors (Ifngr) to induce donor class Ia and Ib products, which engage host inflammatory cells to limit perforin-granzyme-mediated damage and prevent AMA associated with inhibition of activin expression. Thus, Ifng may control T helper type 2 (Th2) cell inflammation by induction of class I products. Organ allografts deficient in interferon-γ (Ifng) or major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I products develop accelerated necrosis when rejection develops, depending on perforin and granzymes. Thus Ifng-induced donor class I products deliver inhibitory signals to host inflammatory cells. We used microarrays to investigate whether Ifng-induced donor class I products also control inflammation patterns in mouse kidney allografts. Compared to wild-type (WT) allografts, many transcripts were increased in both Ifng-deficient allografts (Ifng-suppressed transcripts [GSTs]) and class I-deficient allografts (class I-suppressed transcripts [CISTs]), with 73% overlap between GSTs and CISTs. Some GSTs and CISTs reflected increased necrosis, including known injury-induced transcripts. However, many GSTs and CISTs were independent of perforin, granzymes and necrosis, and were associated with alternative macrophage activation (AMA) (e.g. arginase I [Arg1], macrophage elastase [Mmp12] and macrophage mannose receptor 1 [Mrc1]). AMA transcripts were induced despite absence of host interleukin (IL)4 and IL13 receptors. The AMA inducer may be activins, whose genes (inhibin A [InhbA] and inhibin B [InhbB]) were increased in all allografts with AMA. We conclude that in allograft rejection, Ifng acts via donor Ifng receptors (Ifngr) to induce donor class Ia and Ib products, which engage host inflammatory cells to limit perforin-granzyme-mediated damage and prevent AMA associated with inhibition of activin expression. Thus, Ifng may control T helper type 2 (Th2) cell inflammation by induction of class I products.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations65
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207