MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2558898059 · doi:10.1182/blood.v108.11.762.762

Reduction in Factor VIII Inhibitors Mediated through Tolerogenic Antigen Presentation by immature Dendritic Cells.

2006· article· en· W2558898059 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Qadura, Andrea Labelle, Kirsten Walker, Kathleen P. Pratt, Maha Othman, Christine Hough, David Lillicrap

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemophilia Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunologyMedicineAntigenBone marrowImmune systemDendritic cellImmune toleranceImmunotherapyAntigen-presenting cellMyeloidAntibodyT cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Inhibitory antibodies are a major complication of factor VIII (FVIII) treatment in patients with hemophilia A. Hemophilic patients with inhibitors face major challenges in terms of their bleeding treatments and the cost of these therapies. The use of tolerogenic immunotherapy prior to protein replacement therapy represents a novel strategy to prevent the initiation of an immune response directed against FVIII. Dendritic cells (DCs) are professional antigen presenting cells (APCs) that play a central role in initiating and directing T−cells towards either immunity or tolerance. We isolated myeloid immature dendritic cells (iDCs) from murine bone marrow and pulsed the cells with FVIII protein or the C2 domain of FVIII (FVIII−iDCs/C2−iDCs) under a non−inflammatory environment and in the presence or absence of anti−inflammatory and immunosuppressive agents such as dexamethasone (Dex) and andrographolide (Andro). One million pulsed−iDCs were infused into a group of five hemophilic Balb/c mice on a weekly basis for three weeks through tail vein injection (iv). Anti−FVIII antibody levels were monitored by functional Bethesda assay after a subsequent challenge with four weekly IV FVIII (2 IU/ml) or C2 (125 ng) injections. Flow cytometry assessment of DC maturation markers indicated that the DCs retained their immature state after pulsing with FVIII or the C2 domain in the presence of Andro or Dex. In vitro proliferation and cytokine release studies using naïve hemophilic mouse CD−4+ T cells and FVIII−iDCs or C2−iDCs in the presence/absence of Dex or Andro showed that the pulsed−iDCs are tolerogenic and result in a marked reduction in the secretion of inflammatory cytokines. We then studied the tolerogenic potential of FVIII−iDCs and C2−iDCs in vivo. We infused pulsed−iDCs that were cultured in the presence or absence of Dex/Andro into naïve hemophilic mice. We observed a 20% and 70% reduction in the levels of FVIII inhibitors in mice that received FVIII−iDCs or C2−iDCs respectively after FVIII or C2 challenges in comparison to control mice that only received FVIII or C2 challenges. Mice that received FVIII−iDCs were re−challenged with 2 IU of FVIII 10 weeks after the last of the four consecutive FVIII challenges. Our results indicate that these mice still showed a 25% reduction in the levels of FVIII inhibitors after the re−challenge suggesting that iDCs were able to induce a tolerogenic memory response against FVIII. The in vivo studies for FVIII pulsed iDCs in the presence of Andro are still in progress. In aggregate, these studies indicate that the administration of immature DCs pulsed with FVIII or the C2 domain of FVIII can significantly reduce the immune response to FVIII following subsequent IV challenges. However, this immunotherapeutic strategy does not completely abolish the anti−FVIII response, suggesting that additional supplementary approaches will be necessary to prevent the development of this treatment−related complication.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicHemophilia Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→