Ex-vivo delivery of monoclonal antibody (Rituximab) to treat human donor lungs prior to transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ex-vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) is an innovative platform for assessing donor lungs in the pre-transplant window. In this study, we demonstrate an extension of its utility by administering the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, Rituximab, during EVLP. We hypothesized that this would lead to targeted depletion of allograft B-cells which may provide significant clinical benefit, including the potential to reduce latent Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and decrease the incidence of post-transplant lymphoproliferative malignancies. METHODS: Twenty human donor lungs rejected for transplantation were placed on EVLP with (n = 10) or without (n = 10) 500 mg of Rituximab. Safety parameters such as lung physiology and inflammatory cytokines were evaluated. We measured the delivery efficacy through flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry and ELISA. An in-vitro culture assay, in the presence of complement, was further conducted to monitor whether B-cell depletion would occur in Rituximab-perfused samples. FINDINGS: Rituximab was successfully delivered to human lungs during EVLP as evidenced by flow cytometric binding assays where lung tissue and lymph node biopsies demonstrated occupied CD20 epitopes after perfusion with the antibody. Lymph nodes from Rituximab perfusions demonstrated a 10.9 fold-reduction in CD20+ staining compared to controls (p = 0.0003). In lung tissue, Rituximab resulted in an 8.75 fold-reduction in CD20+ staining relative to controls (p = 0.0002). This decrease in CD20+ binding illustrates the successful delivery and occupation of epitopes after perfusion with the Rituximab. No apparent safety concerns were seen as exhibited by markers associated with acute cell injury (e.g., proinflammatory cytokines), cell death (e.g., TUNEL staining), or pulmonary physiology. In a post-perfusion tissue culture model, the addition of complement (human serum) resulted in evidence of B-cell depletion consistent with what would be expected with posttransplant activation of bound Rituximab. INTERPRETATION: Our experiments illustrate the potential of EVLP as a platform to deliver monoclonal antibody therapies to treat donor lungs pretransplant with the goal of eliminating a latent virus responsible for considerable morbidity after lung transplantation. FUNDING: Supported by the University Health Network Transplant Center.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".