MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147124328 · doi:10.1111/ctr.12549

Use of IVIg to identify potential miRNA targets for allograft rejection and GvHD therapy

2015· article· en· W2147124328 on OpenAlexaff
Lauriane Padet, Lionel Loubaki, Renée Bazin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHéma-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinemicroRNACD80ImmunologyTransplantationGraft-versus-host diseaseCytokineIn vitroGeneInternal medicineCD40BiologyCytotoxic T cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allograft rejection (AR) and graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) are serious complications following transplantation. Micro-RNAs (miRNAs) have recently been identified as key players in the regulation of these disorders. Because intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) has shown therapeutic potential for the prophylaxis and post-transplant reduction of AR and GvHD, we hypothesized that the effect of IVIg could result from the modulation of specific miRNA expression. To identify such miRNA, we performed mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLRs) as an in vitro model of AR and GvHD, with or without IVIg. We herein show that IVIg strongly inhibits the MLRs. This inhibition is associated with a modulation in the expression of miRNAs implicated in the regulation of pro-inflammatory cytokine (IL-2, IL-6, IFN-γ) and costimulatory molecule (CD80) expression. We propose that these identified miRNAs could represent potential therapeutic targets for the prevention and therapy of AR and GvHD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.303
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207