Novel Small Interfering RNA–Containing Solution Protecting Donor Organs in Heart Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ischemia/reperfusion injury is a major factor in graft quality and subsequent function in the transplantation setting. We hypothesize that the process of RNA interference may be used to "engineer" a graft to suppress expression of genes associated with inflammation, apoptosis, and complement, which are believed to cause ischemia/reperfusion injury. Such manipulation of pathological gene expression may be performed by treatment of the graft ex vivo with small interfering RNA (siRNA) as part of the preservation procedure. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart grafts from BALB/c mice were preserved in UW solution (control) or UW solution containing siRNAs targeting tumor necrosis factor-alpha, C3, and Fas genes (siRNA solution) at 4 degrees C for 48 hours and subsequently transplanted into syngeneic recipients. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha, C3, and Fas genes were elevated by ischemia/reperfusion injury after 48 hours of preservation in UW solution. Preservation in siRNA solution knocked down gene expression at the level of messenger RNA and protein in the grafts after transplantation. All grafts preserved in siRNA solution showed strong contraction, whereas grafts preserved in control solution demonstrated no detectable contraction by high-frequency ultrasound scanning. siRNA solution-treated organs exhibited improved histology and diminished neutrophil and lymphocyte infiltration compared with control solution-treated organs. Furthermore, the treated heart grafts retained strong beating up to the end of the observation period (>100 days), whereas all control grafts lost function within 8 days. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of siRNA into organ storage solution is a feasible and effective method of attenuating ischemia/reperfusion injury, protecting cardiac function, and prolonging graft survival.
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".