ライフサイエンスコーパス: donor cell

1 , the process can be quite stressful for the donor cell.

2 ows that this reaction can take place in the donor cell.

3 techniques for distinguishing recipient from donor cells.

4 most commonly due to material transfer from donor cells.

5 promoting the proliferation of transplanted donor cells.

6 ntibodies (mAbs) bound to target antigens on donor cells.

7 LG-2-interacting protein X (ALIX) within the donor cells.

8 ete engraftment of the recipient BM with GFP donor cells.

9 mice reveals survival and engraftment of the donor cells.

10 ell chimerism or the proportion of malignant donor cells.

11 ous physiologic properties reflective of the donor cells.

12 Host cells were attracted to Wnt11 donor cells.

13 conjugative plasmid RP4 present in adjacent donor cells.

14 on and functional status of peptidases in Ag donor cells.

15 s its functional reconstitution by wild-type donor cells.

16 and severity of inflammation induced by the donor cells.

17 c mice generated with CCR2(KO) or CX3CR1(KO) donor cells.

18 cellular immune responses primed directly by donor cells.

19 levels correlated with higher percentages of donor cells.

20 mmunoglobulin G (IgG)-chelated antigens from donor cells.

21 d by intravenous transplantation of the same donor cells.

22 signaling between conjugative recipient and donor cells.

23 (Xa) and one inactive X (Xi) chromosome from donor cells.

24 be highly significant for non-heart-beating donor cells.

25 se livers permit extensive repopulation with donor cells.

26 is severely limited by the poor survival of donor cells.

27 omplexes in the form of exosomes released by donor cells.

28 ssing three fluorescent viruses were used as donor cells.

29 All patients engrafted with donor cells.

30 gnal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPalpha) on donor cells.

31 erived mesenchymal stem cells from Snuppy as donor cells.

32 ls, leading to complete spermatogenesis from donor cells.

33 is severely limited by the poor survival of donor cells.

34 shed levels of miR-29b compared with healthy donor cells.

35 patterns that differed from those in unused donor cells.

36 is severely limited by the poor survival of donor cells.

37 genotype and the phenotype conferred by the donor cells.

38 Mixed retinal donor cells (1 ~ 2 x 10(4)) isolated from neural retinas

39 is frequently used as a marker for tracking donor cells adoptively transplanted into recipient anima

40 ipient blood and bone marrow with allogeneic donor cells after sublethal irradiation by a ~2-fold inc

41 The graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effect of donor cells (against A20 tumor cells) was maintained or

42 eviously known to suppress self-induction of donor cells, also serves as a classic quorum-sensing sig

43 replacement of the host's immune system with donor cells, although the heterogeneity of clinical mani

44 in an increased production of mature myeloid donor cells and an increased survival of recipient mice

45 istochemistry were used to track the fate of donor cells and assess their capacity to repair osteonec

46 llular drug transfer, cytotoxicity of PTX on Donor cells and cytotoxicity of PTX-containing exosomes

47 ve mNPC was not the result of fusion between donor cells and endogenous neuroretinal cells.

48 dothelium inward, reduces surgical trauma to donor cells and facilitates spontaneous unfolding, thus

49 idine staining indicated that persistence of donor cells and formation of new myocytes were negligibl

50 AP), enabled efficient (>90%) engraftment of donor cells and full correction of a sickle-cell anemia

51 ajor histocompatibility complex haplotype of donor cells and not the differences in the expression of

52 mmary, this mouse can be used as a source of donor cells and organs in various research areas such as

53 biotic resistance between resistance-bearing donor cells and resistance-deficient recipient cells.

54 n of comparable MHC combinations between the donor cells and the graft recipient as used in human pat

55 tle is known about the fate and interplay of donor cells and the mobilized DNA during transfer.

56 BMP 2 or 4; however, the contribution of the donor cells and their interactions with the host cells d

57 rtance especially in the cryopreservation of donor cells and tissue, but native antifreeze proteins a

58 Cellular contacts between HIV-1-infected donor cells and uninfected primary CD4(+) T lymphocytes

59 athways: the direct pathway (non-self HLA on donor cells) and the indirect pathway (self-restricted p

60 transplants with wild-type CD45.1 and CD45.2 donor cells, and characterised haematopoietic cell recon

61 Selective prolongation of engineered donor cell AP duration (31.9-139.1 ms) by low-dose BaCl2

62 ell transplantation, a substantial number of donor cells are lost because of apoptotic cell death.

63 It is acknowledged that donor cells are neither appreciably retained nor meaning

64 changes and vascularization in tissues where donor cells are not detected, suggesting that their ther

65 elated with the density of CD47 molecules on donor cells, as CD47(+/-) DST was able to prolonged dono

66 rs on acceptor cells take up and internalize donor cell-associated immune complexes composed of speci

67 ukocyte neutrophils using anti-Ly6G inhibits donor cell astrogliosis and rescues the capacity of a do

68 smission overcame barriers introduced in the donor cell at the level of gene expression and surface r

69 Using WT donor cells, ATM accumulation is several-fold greater in

70 -dependent cytotoxic crossmatch (CDC-XM) and donor cell-based flow cytometric crossmatch (flow-XM) bu

71 ls of transplantation, we have observed that donor cells become "cross-dressed" in very high levels o

72 ring of EVs involves the modification of the donor cell before EV isolation or direct modification of

73 Either the donor cell (before reconstruction) or the early embryo w

74 scenario, subretinal transplantation places donor cells beneath an intact host outer nuclear layer (

75 Mixed chimeras showed no cytotoxicity to donor cells, but a similar rapid killing rate for major

76 tion had little effect on gene expression in donor cells, but it substantially improved transcription

77 cal mismatch between host cardiomyocytes and donor cells can directly affect the electrical safety of

78 HSCTs with wild-type-CCR5(+) donor cells can lead to a sustained reduction in the siz

79 we show that physiological tau released from donor cells can transfer to recipient cells via the medi

80 rstood pathophysiology, or poor alignment of donor cell capabilities with patient needs.

81 Permanent inhibition of apoptosis in donor cells caused by the loss of these BH3-only protein

82 The levels of donor cell chimerism achieved in this study would be the

83 (null)) mice resulted in a limited degree of donor cell chimerism and a differentiation program skewe

84 Greater than 15% peripheral donor cell chimerism persisted for more than 60 days aft

85 Donor cell chimerism remained stable for up to 2 years a

86 Although less than 1.5% peripheral donor cell chimerism was seen during the maintenance per

87 In Transwell co-culture experiments, mutant donor cells conferred miR-100-mediated target repression

88 Exosomes isolated from Donor cells contained appreciable drug levels (2-7pmole/

89 sfer-94+/-4.1% of apparently well-integrated donor cells containing both donor and host markers.

90 nd that, in hGPC-xenografted mice, the human donor cells continue to expand throughout the forebrain,

91 le tissue was transplanted into a male host, donor cells contributing to the developing testis retain

92 This observation should facilitate donor cell contribution to host tissues, resulting in wh

93 approximately 1 transconjugant for every 100 donor cells could be recovered from the intestine of N2

94 lantation could be a viable alternative, but donor cells currently are procured from the same sources

95 ackground, as observed with the mitochondria donor cells, cybrids with benign mitochondria showed hig

96 erapy and the exact pathway leading to acute donor cell death following transplantation is still unkn

97 humans, we sought to assess the efficacy of donor cells derived from both healthy and diabetic anima

98 rnalization and delivery of this metastatic "donor" cell-derived message provide plausible mechanisms

99 monocytes, leading to exacerbated MPN and to donor-cell-derived MPN following stem cell transplantati

100 GVHD lethality in mice that received Pdl1-/- donor cells did not affect graft-versus-leukemia respons

101 that, depending on the abundance of antigen-donor cells, different subsets of liver cells could cros

102 nced by the host environment, such that more donor cells differentiated as oligodendrocytes in the hy

103 predominantly neuronal and oligodendrocytic donor cell differentiation, and functional locomotor imp

104 nical properties as the native bone, and the donor cells directly participated in endochondral bone f

105 ated from the culture medium of drug-treated donor cells (Donor cells) using ultra-centrifugation, an

106 , adjusted for comorbidity scores, source of donor cells, donor type, patient age, disease severity,

107 y KO T cells was observed only at suboptimal donor cell doses and was greatest for CD80 KO-->F1 mice.

108 Donor cells engrafted into bones and differentiated into

109 clinically relevant for MSUD and may offer a donor cell engraftment advantage.

110 These reduced intensity regimens still allow donor cell engraftment and GVT, whilst reducing the morb

111 splanted with donor satellite cells promoted donor cell engraftment in a few instances, suggesting th

112 importance of these factors as mediators of donor cell engraftment in an in vivo model of satellite

113 cells within irradiated host muscle promote donor cell engraftment remains elusive.

114 icient and resulted in much higher levels of donor cell engraftment than intraperitoneal injection.

115 Donor cell engraftment was confirmed using fluorescent i

116 Donor cell engraftment within non-irradiated dystrophic

117 ical application is limited by low levels of donor cell engraftment.

118 slates into increased long-term multilineage donor cell engraftment.

119 ase space within the hematopoietic niche for donor cell engraftment.

120 of plasma FVIII activity after hematopoietic donor cell engraftment.

121 mes after the irradiation dose that enhances donor cell engraftment.

122 ive conditioning, which associated with poor donor cell engraftment.

123 te immune response is required for effective donor cell engraftment.

124 hyl)-nitrosourea (BCNU) treatment to enhance donor-cell engraftment and then evaluated transplant tol

125 -mice showed long-term stable and high-level donor-cell engraftment with MGMT transgenic C57BL/6 BMT

126 ed peak CD80 upregulation at day 10; CD80 KO donor cells exhibited greater peak (day 10) donor T cell

127 Wild-type donor cells exhibited peak CD80 upregulation at day 10;

128 of allogeneic non-self, and their capture of donor cell exosomes to amplify the presentation of trans

129 upregulated in lesional skin and mononuclear donor cells exposed to recombinant mutant proteins.

130 rfaced with genetically engineered excitable donor cells expressing inward rectifier potassium (Kir2.

131 entiated cells, and pre-depleting cohesin in donor cells facilitates minor ZGA and SCNT.

132 of perforin-mediated lytic mechanisms in the donor cells failed to reduce their ability to protect.

133 doptive transfer of 6-ECDCA- or CDCA-treated donor cells failed to transfer disease in naive recipien

134 Despite highly variable donor cell fates, ICE transfer is remarkably robust over

135 s, inputting experimental cell stiffness and donor cell fluorescence values generated transfers to si

136 ach provides a potential source of universal donor cells for applications where the differentiated de

137 duced expression system were used as nuclear donor cells for SCNT.

138 ransgenic mouse is a commonly used source of donor cells for this purpose.

139 em cells have been envisioned as a source of donor cells for transplantation and vectors for the deli

140 al as was homeostatic contraction of CD80 KO donor cells from days 12-14.

141 efit from acute GVHD was also observed using donor cells from IFN-gammaR(-/-) T cells compared with c

142 Moreover, clones can be produced using donor cells from sterile animals, such as steers and gel

143 After removal of the donor cells from the coculture, the CCR7 expression on N

144 in vivo, as demonstrated by the inability of donor cells from treated mice to cause leukemia in secon

145 tone H3 lysine 9 trimethylation (H3K9me3) of donor cell genome as a major barrier for efficient repro

146 When donor cells harbouring SS(OM)-mCherry were mixed with GF

147 st disease (GVHD), triggered by alloreactive donor cells, has remained a major complication.

148 e not been therapeutic for diseases in which donor cells have no survival advantage.

149 hat flow-sorted embryonic-stage Crx-positive donor cells have the potential to replace lost cones, as

150 Rather, the APCs and donor cells have to contact each other for the transfer

151 ring reprogramming, cells progressively lose donor cell identity and gradually acquire iPS cell prope

152 nitor iPSC-derived graft maturation, predict donor cell identity, and evaluate graft function prior t

153 ase of exosomes has an effect on the exosome donor cells in addition to the recipient cells has not b

154 pheromone system may have evolved such that donor cells in biofilms are only induced to transfer whe

155 es can be a convenient resource for tracking donor cells in both syngenic MHC-matched and in allogeni

156 allows tracing of the injected, ESC-derived donor cells in chimeras generated via NBC.

157 The artefactual appearance of integrated donor cells in host retinas following transplantation is

158 of immune reaction between the host and the donor cells in MPS IH, gene-corrected autologous stem ce

159 rgamma)-dependent cytokine signaling only to donor cells in NSG recipients differently influenced the

160 ow (BM), in part due to the poor survival of donor cells in response to inflammatory reactions, hypox

161 It is difficult to detect engraftment of donor cells in the liver, and methods to track cells lab

162 ic flow index correlated with an increase in donor cells in the mediastinal draining lymph nodes; inc

163 f dipeptidyl-peptidase IV enzyme activity of donor cells in the negative host liver.

164 ix recipients had substantial proportions of donor cells in the skin, and none had detectable anti-C7

165 Furthermore, the total numbers of donor cells in the spleen at their peaks were 10- to 100

166 tophagy level and function, similar to young donors' cells, in which spermidine biosynthesis has been

167 including MHC class I-peptide complexes, to donor cells, including dendritic cells.

168 of recipient cells to sEVs from KRAS mutant donor cells increases proliferation and tumorigenesis an

169 We show that CD81 levels on the donor cells influence the efficiency of cell-to-cell spr

170 s given kidney transplants and hematopoietic donor cell infusions.

171 t tools for comprehensive assessment of host-donor cell innervation.

172 ads to miR-193a accumulation in the exosomal donor cells instead of exosomes, inhibiting tumour progr

173 The donor cells integrated into the rat cerebellum developin

174 Only the embryonic-stage Crx-positive donor cells integrated within the outer nuclear layer of

175 visual function was understood to be due to donor cells integrating within host retinae.

176 date the underlying mechanisms through which donor cells interact with the host and thus increase lon

177 f electrical mismatch across a cardiomyocyte-donor cell interface affects vulnerability to conduction

178 ng studies demonstrated viable implants with donor cells interspersed in the adjacent myocardium with

179 e showed an increase in migration of labeled donor cells into the mertk-/- peritoneal cavity.

180 Integration of donor cells into the ONL increased as a function of host

181 plantation of unmatched normal and malignant donor cells into zap70(y442) mutant zebrafish, with T ce

182 of these polymers to the cryopreservation of donor cells is also introduced.

183 The differentiation of the donor cells is influenced by the host environment, such

184 imeras indicated that expression of LIGHT on donor cells is not required for disease induction.

185 results show for the first time that CD47 on donor cells is required to repress recipient DC activati

186 cell transplantation (HSCT) with susceptible donor cells is sufficient to achieve sustained HIV-1 rem

187 d bone marrow chimeras and that rejection of donor cells leads to a specific antitumor response again

188 oad renal benefit achieved by relatively few donor cells led to the hypothesis that extracellular ves

189 We generated a K562-based "donor" cell line expressing CCR7, Clone9.CCR7, to transf

190 luripotency, based on their capacity to test donor cell lineage potential in the context of an organi

191 d clinical data, HLA genotyping results, and donor cell lines or genomic DNA for 1277 patients with A

192 cceptance was associated with persistence of donor cells long-term in vivo.

193 allogeneic HSCT with homozygous CCR5Delta32 donor cells may be sufficient to achieve HIV-1 remission

194 nd fission processes dynamically remodel the donor cell membrane in a protein- or a lipid-mediated ma

195 y effectively erase dysfunctional epigenetic donor cell memory or disease-associated aberrations in p

196 g peak numbers, around day 3, the "licensed" donor cells migrate to the circulation and initiate infl

197 or 30 d post-SCI (dpi) resulted in extensive donor cell migration, predominantly neuronal and oligode

198 the persistence of transfused semiallogeneic donor cells mismatched at major histocompatibility class

199 d in localized astroglial differentiation of donor cells near the lesion epicenter and failure to pro

200 eviously reported, because it was found that donor cells older than P11 effectively integrated into a

201 Specific barriers, either located in the donor cell or in the target cell, prevent efficient spre

202 cloned embryos regardless of treating either donor cells or early embryos with UNC0638.

203 ult or pre-weaned donor mice, male or female donor cells, or between male and female host muscle envi

204 Most peripheral donor cells originated from the BMT and not from the VCA

205 the host was lower than that of mouse or rat donor cells, our results indicate that hNCCs, injected i

206 m for export whereby effectors do not access donor cell periplasm in transit.

207 The small residual pool of donor cells persisting in allografts for over a decade c

208 embrane vesicles partially composed from the donor cell plasma membrane.

209 this study, we show that CD47 expression on donor cells plays an important role in suppression of al

210 triggered massive CAR-T expansion, increased donor cell polyfunctionality, and enhanced antitumor eff

211 Our data show that the same neural donor cell population grafted into different brain regio

212 l astrogliosis and rescues the capacity of a donor cell population to promote locomotor improvement a

213 functional repair derived from a therapeutic donor cell population, and support targeting the inflamm

214 functional repair derived from a therapeutic donor cell population.

215 promise, the presumed mechanism of action of donor cell populations often remains insufficiently vali

216 in the derivation of disease-relevant human donor cell populations.

217 ication vary significantly between different donor cell preparations and frequently decline in a mann

218 ion of target cell programs and silencing of donor cell programs.

219 damaged by radiation might be effecting this donor cell proliferation.

220 ming efficiencies using genetically modified donor cells, prospectively isolating distinct reprogramm

221 However, the percentage of donor cells recruited into division was shown to indicat

222 Donor cells replaced both globule-containing and globule

223 ay CD8 T cells that recognize alloantigen on donor cells require CD4 help for activation and cytolyti

224 e of transconjugation (10(-3) and 10(-4) per donor cell, respectively) was significantly lower.

225 r source and chromosome painting of labelled donor cells revealed transdifferentiation to a myocyte f

226 on of CXCR3 on cells, the depletion of CXCR3 donor cells significantly reduced the number of adoptive

227 tes are transient and bridge the gap between donor cell silencing and pluripotency marker acquisition

228 al cell types, providing a highly convenient donor cell source for iPSC-based retinal studies.

229 inform the choice among various alternative donor-cell sources.

230 Intercellular MHC transfer was donor-cell specific; thymic DC readily acquired MHC from

231 We did not detect any donor cell-specific activation of inflammation within th

232 Widespread expression of donor-cell-specific genes was observed in inappropriate

233 The donor cell state transitions can be described by using a

234 In contrast to a live donor cell, stimulation with purified CglF protein occur

235 Analysis of PB grafts did not identify a donor cell subset significantly associated with OS, rela

236 ecific antibody bound to HLA antigens on the donor cell surface in their native conformation that is

237 was applied with the use of (123)I to follow donor cell survival and distribution and with the use of

238 sected by live-cell imaging into four steps: donor cell-target cell contact, formation of viral punct

239 However, donor cells that already contain a particular conjugativ

240 nologies, the race to create 'off-the-shelf' donor cells that are invisible to the immune system ('un

241 demonstrate that it is the nonhematopoietic donor cells that are responsible for the reconstitution.

242 ransiently restored by physical contact with donor cells that encode the corresponding wild-type prot

243 a previously active transcriptional state in donor cells that is characterized by high H3K4 methylati

244 overed a molecular mechanism operating in Ag donor cells that regulates cross-priming of CD8+ T cells

245 d OVA-loaded beta(2)-microglobulin knockout "donor" cells that cannot present Ag, DCs from stressed m

246 ing of prion-like protein aggregates from a "donor cell" that is the source of misfolded aggregates t

247 Compared with well-coupled donor cells, the interface composed of poorly coupled ce

248 During programmed stimulation of donor cells, the vulnerable time window for conduction b

249 TDL are a feasible, tolerable, and novel donor cell therapy alternative for relapse after AlloSCT

250 in solid tumors by directly vaccine-boosting donor cells through their chimeric receptor in vivo.

251 efficiently transferred via exosomes from a donor cell to an alphavbeta6-negative recipient cell and

252 D-L1 and PD-L2 are independently required on donor cells to achieve T-cell tolerance.

253 echanisms underlying the contribution of the donor cells to bone health are poorly understood and req

254 The ability of donor cells to engraft without evidence of ongoing HIV-1

255 s can yield electric coupling of unexcitable donor cells to host cardiomyocytes with functional conse

256 e produced by recipient cells is detected by donor cells to induce conjugative genetic transfer.

257 the antibiotic resistance plasmid pCF10 from donor cells to recipient cells.

258 cipient animals improved the contribution of donor cells to regenerating muscle after transplant.

259 pients, because of an inability of activated donor cells to survive.

260 y to the host muscle, or the contribution of donor cells to the host muscle.

261 Unexpectedly, Tg(+) donor cells transferred minimal G-EAT, which was partial

262 HC mismatch, and could be induced by various donor cell types including B cells, T cells, or NK cells

263 essors would have to be induced in different donor cell types.

264 s are often used to reprogram many different donor cell types.

265 In all, tested organs donor cells undergo "licensing" for pathogenicity, consi

266 or Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) such as shortage of donor cells, use of immunosuppressive drugs remain as ma

267 rive essential amino acids from prototrophic donor cells using intercellular nanotubes.

268 culture medium of drug-treated donor cells (Donor cells) using ultra-centrifugation, and analyzed fo

269 ermined that intravascular administration of donor cells via intracardiac injection was far more effi

270 ing donors offer opportunities for improving donor cell viability, which will advance the utility of

271 contrast to previous reports, the age of the donor cell was not as critical as previously reported, b

272 XIAP delivery to donor cells was accomplished by transfection with adenoa

273 Persistence of intrathymic donor cells was associated with intrathymic presence of

274 ohort even as the second cohort of identical donor cells was being hyperacutely rejected.

275 Apoptosis, but not necrosis, of donor cells was found associated with robust global prot

276 he deletion was initiated, a second graft of donor cells was used to assess a hyperacute response.

277 ing sustained pseudoautocrine stimulation to donor cells, we elicited marked enhancements in tumor el

278 fection or transfection of class II-negative donor cells, we observed minimal transfer of a proteasom

279 Thus, we found that when donor cells were activated in vitro and injected intrape

280 ugation in populations of plasmid-containing donor cells were both observed in biofilms, consistent w

281 Fluorescently labeled donor cells were detectable for at least 7 days posttran

282 g high levels of IL-9; and 5) IL-9-producing donor cells were detected in the blood of Th9 recipients

283 ance in cell transplantation assays in which donor cells were engrafted into host mdx limb muscle.

284 himaeras, in chicken mixed-sex chimaeras the donor cells were excluded from the functional structures

285 ipient CD154+TcM induced by stimulation with donor cells were expressed as a fraction of those induce

286 ed C7 deposition and a sustained presence of donor cells were found in the skin of children with rece

287 acerbated pulmonary fibrosis, but not if the donor cells were made AREG deficient prior to transfer.

288 ions was verified with FACS; and patient and donor cells were mixed to test for sensitivity.

289 rated cells was significantly increased when donor cells were pretreated with AAV-XIAP.

290 ll chimerism and the proportion of malignant donor cells were significantly reduced in immunodeficien

291 ber and of changes in gene expression by the donor cells were similar in lung, spleen, and other test

292 Donor cells were traced in female recipient mice by Y ch

293 Donor cells were tracked by sex-mismatch and green fluor

294 requires the TraAB proteins in recipient and donor cells, where they are hypothesized to facilitate O

295 y of somatic mutations present in individual donor cells, which are missed by bulk sequencing methods

296 s withdraw amino acids from the cytoplasm of donor cells, which delays feedback inhibition of the cor

297 the undefined phenotypic distribution of the donor cells, which has three principle drawbacks: (1) St

298 ifferentiation along lineages related to the donor cell, while restricting alternative cell fates.

299 -like behaviour in the pheromone response of donor cells with a delayed, but increased response to th

300 Compared to donor cells without OX40 activation, adoptive transfer o