The efficacy and safety of bone marrow-derived cells extract in the management of Sjögren's-like disease in NOD mouse model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) is a common, chronic, and debilitating autoimmune diseases, affecting nearly 4 million North Americans. It affects females approximately 14 times higher than males, most of which are postmenopausal women. It is characterized by exocrine glands lymphocytic infiltration and glandular destruction. SS is a slowly progressing disease that starts decades before the patients experience any symptoms. Patients will experience dry eyes and mouth, and a wide range of extra-glandular manifestations, including fatigue, arthritis, arthralgia, pulmonary, neurological, cutaneous, and muscular manifestations, and lymphoma. The generalized manifestations lead to a significantly compromised quality of life. The pathogenesis is complex and still not fully understood due to the difficulty of studying the disease in humans and the ambiguity of its etiology. Unfortunately, no cure has been found yet. The current management is directed toward dryness symptoms palliation, prevention of further complications, and when serious systemic conditions emerge, immunosuppressive agents are indicated. The aim of this PhD thesis is to test a new treatment modality that combines the characteristics of cell and biologic therapies. The risks associated with both treatments complicate the clinical condition of significantly compromised patients. Therefore, we employed the success of BM-derived cells in managing SS in the form of a biologic therapy, by extracting their proteins and using it as a potential SS therapy. We tested the ability of bone marrow BM-derived cells extract in decreasing inflammation and promoting trophic changes in the glandular tissue in the NOD mouse model, when injected before SS immune dysregulation intensifies. First, we tested the effectiveness of BM-derived mesenchymal stromal cells extract (MSCsE) versus BM-derived mesenchymal stromal cells in preventing or alleviating the symptoms of SS. The treated groups (MSCs and MSCsE) showed comparable positive results regarding these treatments efficacy in preserving the salivary and lacrimal flow rates. This preservation was the outcome of maintained cell proliferation and specialized cell subpopulations and genes associated with regeneration. Additionally, SS immune dysregulation was, somewhat, managed via the elevation of IL-10 and suppression of B cells. Second, we assessed the effectiveness of BM cell extract (BMCE) in hindering SS immune dysregulation in NOD mice and we evaluated its systemic safety. The treated mice showed comparable results to those of MSCsE and MSCs; suggesting a common and/or possibly different, proteins composition in both therapies, that might have led to the recorded regenerative outcomes. Additionally, we tested the systemic safety of BMCE as an example of the cell extract concept. Surprisingly, the BMCE-treated NOD mice showed no difference in comparison to the control (saline-treated) NOD mice and the non-SS and non-treated control mouse model, ICRIn conclusion, BM-derived cells extract treatment has shown promising results in managing SS, and we may recommend the use of BMCE and MSCsE as potential treatment modality for patients. They exerted immune regulatory and trophic effects to injured exocrine tissues. Additionally, the various risks associated with biologic and cellular therapies are minimal when using the extract. Biologic therapies are associated with opportunistic infections due to a complete interference with cytokines or blocking B cells as strategies to manage SS; however, this does not apply to cell extracts. Additionally, cellular therapies require myeloablative conditioning and their use is complicated with Graft versus Host Disease (GvHD) and malignancy. However, using the cell extract did not lead to complications in our mice after a follow up period of 16 weeks and no prior preparative procedures were required. Yet, we may not exclude possible changes which might appear with longer in vivo follow up periods
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".