In vivo study to assess dosage of allogeneic pig retinal progenitor cells: Long‐term survival, engraftment, differentiation and safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite notable efforts and significant therapeutical advances, age-related macular degeneration remains the single most common reason for vision loss. Retinal progenitor cells (RPCs) are considered promising candidates for cellular treatments that repair and restore vision. In this allogenic study, the phenotypic profile of pig and human RPCs derived using similar manufacturing processes is compared. The long-term (12-week) survival of green fluorescent protein-pig retinal progenitor cells GFP-pRPC after subretinal transplantation into normal miniature pig (mini-pig) retina is investigated. Human eyes are both anatomically and physiologically mimicked by pig eyes, so the pig is an ideal model to show an equivalent way of delivering cells, immunological response and dosage. The phenotypic equivalency of porcine and clinically intended human RPCs was established. Thirty-nine mini-pigs are used in this study, and vehicle-injected eyes and non-injected eyes serve as controls. Six groups are given different dosages of pRPCs, and the cells are found to survive well in all groups. At 12 weeks, strong evidence of integration is indicated by the location of the grafted cells within the neuro-retina, extension of processes to the plexiform layers and expression of key retinal markers such as recoverin, rhodopsin and synaptophysin. No immunosuppression is used, and no immune response is found in any of the groups. No pRPC-related histopathology findings are reported in the major organs investigated. An initial dose of 250 k cells in 100 µl of buffer is established as an appropriate initial dose for future human clinical trials.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".