Are donor lymphocytes a barrier to transplantation tolerance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Following solid organ transplantation (SOT), populations of donor lymphocytes are frequently found in the recipient circulation. Their impact on host alloimmunity has long been debated but remains unclear, and it has been suggested that transferred donor lymphocytes may either promote tolerance to the graft or hasten its rejection. We discuss possible mechanisms by which the interaction of donor passenger lymphocytes with recipient immune cells may either augment the host alloimmune response or inhibit it. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent work has highlighted that donor T lymphocytes are the most numerous of the donor leukocyte populations within a SOT and that these may be transferred to the recipient after transplantation. Surprisingly, graft-versus-host recognition of major histocompatibility complex class II on host B cells by transferred donor CD4 T cells can result in marked augmentation of host humoral alloimmunity and lead to early graft failure. Killing of donor CD4 T cells by host natural killer cells is critical in preventing this augmentation. SUMMARY: The ability of passenger donor CD4 T cells to effect long-term augmentation of the host humoral alloimmune response raises the possibility that ex-vivo treatment or modification of the donor organ prior to implantation may improve long-term transplant outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".