MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pre-Operative Regulatory T Cell Suppressive Function Correlates with Short-Term Graft Outcome after Kidney Transplantation

2012· article· en· W2317402249 on OpenAlexaff
Mai‐Tien Nguyen, Elise Fryml, S. Liu, Jean Tchervenkov, Steven Paraskevas

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Outcome (game theory)TransplantationMedicineKidney transplantationFunction (biology)Graft rejectionRegulatory T cellInternal medicineImmunologyT cellBiologyImmune systemCell biologyIL-2 receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Regulatory T cells (Treg) are involved in preventing rejection and inducing tolerance after kidney transplantation by suppressing the action of effector T cells (Teff). A higher Treg frequency and suppressive function or a lower Teff frequency and proliferation prior to kidney transplantation could limit initial immunologic injury and be associated with better graft outcome post-transplant. We investigated whether Treg frequency and function or Teff frequency and proliferation correlated with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) following kidney transplantation. Methods: Peripheral blood was collected from 49 de novo kidney transplant recipients (44 deceased donors, 5 living donors) pre-operatively prior to induction immunosuppression (34 anti-thymocyte globulin, 12 alemtuzumab, 3 basiliximab). All recipients received tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil for maintenance immunosuppression, with corticosteroids used in all but the alemtuzumab group. Mononuclear cells were isolated by density centrifugation. CD4+CD25hiFoxP3+ Treg and CD4+CD25- Teff frequencies were measured by flow cytometry. For assessment of Treg suppressive function and Teff proliferation, CD4+CD25+ Treg (purity: 89 ± 1%) and CD4+CD25- Teff (purity: 85 ± 2%) were magnetically isolated. CFSE-labelled Teff were co-cultured in the presence of anti-CD3/CD28-coated beads with Treg at a 1:0 and 1:1 ratio for 5 days. Treg suppressive function was measured by percentage suppression of CFSE-labelled Teff proliferation. Graft function at 7, 14, 30, 90, and 180 days post-transplant was assessed by eGFR calculated by the MDRD formula. Correlations were made using Spearman's rank order correlation. Results: Pre-operative Treg frequency did not correlate with post-transplant eGFR. However, significant positive correlations were found between pre-operative Treg suppressive function and eGFR on post-transplant day 7, 14, 30, 90, and 180 (Fig 1A–E). Significant inverse correlations were also found between pre-operative Teff frequency and eGFR on post-transplant day 7, 14, and 30 (rs=-0.44 p< 0.01, rs=-0.35 p=0.02, and rs=-0.36 p=0.02 respectively). There were no correlations between pre-operative Teff proliferation and eGFR.[Figure 1]Conclusion: Pre-operative Treg suppressive function but not frequency correlated with graft function up to 180 days after kidney transplantation, while a weaker inverse correlation existed between pre-operative Teff frequency and graft function up to 30 days after transplantation. These results suggest that pre-operative Treg suppressive function measurement could be a tool to identify patients at risk for short-term graft dysfunction. Additionally, development of clinical strategies to enhance Treg suppressive function pre-emptively could improve outcomes in kidney 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0030.000

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 head0.276
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207