MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevention of Graft-Versus-Host Disease by Selective Depletion of Alloreactive T Cells.

2006· article· en· W2591920743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ngocdiep T. Le, Nelson J. Chao

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhotodynamic Therapy Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCytotoxic T cellGranzyme BGraft-versus-host diseaseImmunologyT cellTransplantationBiologyAntigenCD8Cancer researchMolecular biologyStem cellIn vitroImmune systemMedicineCell biologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Mismatched allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) carries a high risk of life-threatening graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) due to activation of donor T cells by antigens present on host cells. Removal of donor mature T cells can prevent GVHD but leads to an increased incidence of opportunistic infections and disease relapse. This study aims to selectively deplete host-reactive donor T cells responsible for GVHD while preserving T cells with anti-tumor and anti-viral effects. METHODS: We utilized a photosensitizer, 4,5-dibromorhodamine-methyl ester (TH9402, Celmed Biosciences Inc., Saint-Laurent, Canada), in an ex vivo photodynamic purging (PDP) process to specifically eradicate host-reactive T cells. Donor T cells with anti-host specificity were identified in a unidirectional mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) where they were activated and became proliferating. TH9402 is taken up by all cells and extruded out of the cell by P-glycoprotein (Pgp) in non-activated cells. However, due to inactivation of Pgp in activated T cells, TH9402 is retained in the mitochondria. Upon exposure to 514 nm light in the Theralux™ device (Celmed), it becomes extremely cytotoxic resulting in cell death. In this study, after treatment with various concentrations of TH9402, the cells were exposed to light for the elimination of alloreactive T cells. The efficiency of allodepletion was assessed by Granzyme B (GrB) assay. T-cell proliferation assays were used to demonstrate the preservation of anti-tumor and anti-viral effects. Finally, the skin explant assay, an in vitro model of GVHD, was utilized to examine the efficacy of the PDP treatment in the removal of alloreactive T cells responsible for GVHD. The parameters of the PDP treatment were optimized for use in subsequent clinical studies. RESULTS: After 72-hour MLC, optimal proliferative response was obtained at a responder: stimulator ratio of 1:1. Activated T cells expressed high level of activation markers such as CD25 and CD69. After the PDP treatment with 20μM of TH9402, alloreactive T cells were consistently depleted by more than 2 logs (Figure 1). Moreover, the PDP treatment did not significantly affect anti-tumor and anti-viral effects as evidenced by responses to third-party stimulators (Figure 2A), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (Figure 2B) and Candida antigens. Most importantly, co-culture of recipient’s skin with PDP-treated cells showed a reduction of graft-versus-host reaction (GVHR) in a TH9402-dose dependent manner. The PDP treatment with 20μM of TH9402 completely abolished GVHR in a skin explant assay. CONCLUSIONS: The PDP treatment can effectively remove donor T cells responsible for GVHD while preserve T cells with anti-tumor and anti-viral effects. These preclinical results provide a basis for initiating a clinical trial to assess the feasibility and efficacy of infusing PDP-treated donor T cells to alloHCT recipient in order to augment anti-tumor and anti-pathogen effects without causing GVHD. Figure 1 PDP treatment reduceds the frequency of alloreactive T cells in a TH9402 does dependent manner. Figure 1. PDP treatment reduceds the frequency of alloreactive T cells in a TH9402 does dependent manner. Figure 2 PDP treatment preserves responses to third-party stimulator and viral antigens. Figure 2. PDP treatment preserves responses to third-party stimulator and viral antigens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueBloodSame topicPhotodynamic Therapy Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207