Dystrophin Expression in Myofibers of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Patients Following Intramuscular Injections of Normal Myogenic Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) patients received injections of myogenic cells obtained from skeletal muscle biopsies of normal donors. The cells (30 x 10 (6)) were injected in 1 cm3 of the tibialis anterior by 25 parallel injections. We performed similar patterns of saline injections in the contralateral muscles as controls. The patients received tacrolimus for immunosuppression. Muscle biopsies were performed at the injected sites 4 weeks later. We observed dystrophin-positive myofibers in the cell-grafted sites amounting to 9 (patient 1), 6.8 (patient 2), and 11% (patient 3). Since patients 1 and 2 had identified dystrophin-gene deletions these results were obtained using monoclonal antibodies specific to epitopes coded by the deleted exons. Donor dystrophin was absent in the control sites. Patient 3 had exon duplication and thus specific donor-dystrophin detection was not possible. However, there were fourfold more dystrophin-positive myofibers in the cell-grafted than in the control site. Donor-dystrophin transcripts were detected by RT-PCR (using primers reacting with a sequence int eh deleted exons) only in the cell-grafted sites in patients 1 and 2. Dystrophin transcripts were more abundant in the cell-grafted than in the control site in patient 3. Therefore, significant dystrophin expression can be obtained in teh skeletal muscles of DMD patients following specific conditions of cell delivery and immunosuppression.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".