Clinical application of immune repertoire sequencing in solid organ transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Measurement of T cell receptor (TCR) or B cell receptor (BCR) gene utilization may be valuable in monitoring the dynamic changes in donor-reactive clonal populations following transplantation and enabling adjustment in therapy to avoid the consequences of excess immune suppression or to prevent rejection with contingent graft damage and to indicate the development of tolerance. Objective: We performed a review of current literature to examine research in immune repertoire sequencing in organ transplantation and to assess the feasibility of this technology for clinical application in immune monitoring. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed Central for English-language studies published between 2010 and 2021 that examined T cell/B cell repertoire dynamics upon immune activation. Manual filtering of the search results was performed based on relevancy and predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted based on study and methodology characteristics. Results: Our initial search yielded 1933 articles of which 37 met the inclusion criteria; 16 of these were kidney transplant studies (43%) and 21 were other or general transplantation studies (57%). The predominant method for repertoire characterization was sequencing the CDR3 region of the TCR β chain. Repertoires of transplant recipients were found to have decreased diversity in both rejectors and non-rejectors when compared to healthy controls. Rejectors and those with opportunistic infections were more likely to have clonal expansion in T or B cell populations. Mixed lymphocyte culture followed by TCR sequencing was used in 6 studies to define an alloreactive repertoire and in specialized transplant settings to track tolerance. Conclusion: Methodological approaches to immune repertoire sequencing are becoming established and offer considerable potential as a novel clinical tool for pre- and post-transplant immune monitoring.
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 | 0.026 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".