MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeated LPS Exposure Augments Alloimmune-Dependent and Airway-Targeted Chronic Lung Allograft Fibrosis in a Mouse Model

2017· article· en· W2614249247 on OpenAlexaff
Tatsuaki Watanabe, K. Boonstra, Chihiro Konoeda, David Hwang, Zehong Guan, Mingyao Liu, Shaf Keshavjee, Tereza Martinu, S. Juvet

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlloimmunityMedicineLung transplantationLungFibrosisLipopolysaccharideAirwayMononuclear cell infiltrationPathologyTransplantationParenchymaPeripheral blood mononuclear cellGastroenterologyImmunologyInternal medicineAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Outcomes after lung transplantation are poor in comparison with those of other solid organs mainly due to chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD)[1], whose pathological correlates include airway and parenchymal fibrosis[2]. Because the lung allograft is constantly exposed to the external environment, CLAD is believed to result from a complex interplay of inflammatory, infectious and alloimmune factors[3]. Hence, experimental models based solely on alloimmunity may not simulate all relevant features of CLAD. We hypothesized that repeated administration of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) would augment alloimmunity and trigger chronic rejection and fibrosis in a mouse minor alloantigen-mismatched orthotopic lung transplant (OLT) model (C57BL/10 [B10, H-2b] → C57BL/6 [B6, H-2b]). Methods: Three groups of mice underwent syngeneic OLT (SynOLT: B6 → B6) or allogeneic OLT (AlloOLT: B10 → B6). Each group was given or not given 6 or 8 doses of intratracheal LPS (5 μg in 50 μl PBS) on serial postoperative days (POD). Our 3 experimental groups are as follows: Group A underwent AlloOLT with LPS, Group B underwent AlloOLT without LPS, Group C underwent SynOLT with LPS. The grafts were histologically assessed 28 days after OLT in a blinded fashion. CT scans were performed on POD 7 and 27. Results: LPS-treated mice showed bilateral lung infiltration on CT at POD 7. CT on POD 27 showed increased graft density in Group A. This change was not observed in Group B or Group C. Histological assessment of acute cellular rejection according to ISHLT criteria was as follows: Group A (score: 2.9), Group B (score: 1.7), Group C (score: 0.5) [Figure 1]. Parenchymal fibrosis was minimal in all groups. On the other hand, obliterative bronchiolitis, an important pathology seen in patients with CLAD, was found only in Group A (6 out of 10) [Figure 2 a-c. Masson trichrome stain. a: Group A, arrow indicates obliterated airway. b: Group B. c: Group C]. The right lungs of mice showed no rejection, inflammation, or airway obliteration on POD 28 [Figure 2d. HE stain of the right lung of Group A]. Conclusion: Repeated intratracheal LPS exposure augments the alloimmune response and causes airway-dominant CLAD-like pathology in a minor alloantigen-mismatched mouse OLT model. These findings reveal an important pathway linking environmental exposure to lung allograft rejection that may allow discovery of new therapeutic targets in CLAD.FigureFigureReferences: 1. Yusen RD. The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-second Official Adult Lung and Heart-Lung Transplantation Report–2015; Focus Theme: Early Graft Failure. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015;34:1264-1277. 2. Sato M. Restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS): a novel form of chronic lung allograft dysfunction. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2011;30:735-742. 3. Hsiao HM. Mechanisms of graft rejection after lung transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2017;22:29-35.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207