ライフサイエンスコーパス: rejection

1 n increased incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection.

2 o or in the setting of help-dependent tumour rejection.

3 contain host endothelium, a source of immune rejection.

4 ) lymph nodes and improves human cancer cell rejection.

5 n and restricted T cell activation and graft rejection.

6 ells with donor leukocytes in the absence of rejection.

7 jection does not occur in absence of mucosal rejection.

8 be explained by the signaling value of this rejection.

9 els of inflammatory arthritis and lung-graft rejection.

10 r evidence that PCs were affected throughout rejection.

11 an transplantation and preventing hyperacute rejection.

12 RNase alone could be insufficient for pollen rejection.

13 executes a key role in the evolution towards rejection.

14 antation remains profoundly limited by graft rejection.

15 2 months postweaning or at concern for acute rejection.

16 n early allograft dysfunction and consequent rejection.

17 cular for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection.

18 e allogeneic response and control transplant rejection.

19 localized skin inflammation consistent with rejection.

20 rammed cell death-1 (PD-1)-related allograft rejection.

21 ients at both elevated and standard risk for rejection.

22 atients experiencing acute kidney transplant rejection.

23 ears, deciphering pathophysiology of cardiac rejection.

24 ized CD8(+) T cell response to bolster tumor rejection.

25 raft infection and the possible induction of rejection.

26 Two patients presented concomitantly CDI and rejection.

27 outcome in KTRs independent of graft loss or rejection.

28 ide effects in patients with renal allograft rejection.

29 is not sufficient for either type of pollen rejection.

30 ence of clinical or histological evidence of rejection.

31 ry and attenuates kidney and heart allograft rejection.

32 tion of corticosteroid boluses used in acute rejection.

33 ctivation had limited effects on controlling rejection.

34 DNA mutations in cancer cells lead to tumor rejection.

35 isolation and transplantation, and allograft rejection.

36 ith an antioxidant may delay immune-mediated rejection.

37 alues >=2.5 are predictive of late allograft rejection.

38 e, despite their higher rates of early acute rejection.

39 tibody responses and accelerated heart graft rejection.

40 dentify antibodies associated with allograft rejection.

41 or antibody-mediated), and 45 had a clinical rejection.

42 loss, but this was in the context of a mixed rejection.

43 raft recipients at the time of biopsy-proven rejection.

44 ipients due to a perceived increased risk of rejection.

45 ith regards to possible social acceptance or rejection.

46 ies cardiac transplant recipients at risk of rejection.

47 < 0.01), with an excess of antibody-mediated rejections.

48 respectively, and 7 eyes developed allograft rejection (0.7%).

49 of DGF (29.3% versus 29.2%, P = 0.9), acute rejection (11.2% versus 11.7%, P = 0.8), and median LOS

50 was associated with a similar rate of acute rejection (13% vs 9%, P = 0.08) but increased rate of ea

51 7 [21.9%], P = .007) and biopsy-proven acute rejections (15 [23.4%] vs 31 [48.4%], P = .002).

52 to evaluate the effector mechanisms driving rejection; (2) potential assays to assess the presence o

53 The incidence of allograft rejection (28% vs 25%; difference, 3% [95% CI, -9% to 15

54 gnificantly increased in patients with acute rejection: 3.89 (1.36) versus 2.32 (1.82), P = 0.021.

55 dnDSAs had a higher rate of organ allograft rejection (45.4% vs 13.8%, P = .03) compared to those wi

56 18.2% prevalence) from acute and subclinical rejection (67.4%); interstitial fibrosis and tubular atr

57 relatively low incidence of T cell-mediated rejection (9.2%) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (

58 Although antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) has been long recognized as a leading c

59 onfirmed cases of clinical antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR) were present in the population, and str

60 on (TCMR), borderline, and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR).

61 f between immunological tolerance and embryo rejection accompanied the evolution of unique male pregn

62 Rationale: Acute cellular rejection (ACR) is common during the initial 3 months af

63 n intestinal transplantation, acute cellular rejection (ACR) remains a significant challenge to achie

64 psy specimens with early AMR, acute cellular rejection (ACR), or acute tubular necrosis (ATN).

65 ular epithelial cells by acute cell-mediated rejection (ACR.

66 9 patients diagnosed with TCMR 1A/borderline rejection across 11 US centers with a simultaneous measu

67 ed to molecular AKI and CKD and to eGFR, not rejection activity, presumably because rejection confers

68 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.58) or acute rejection (adjusted odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence inte

69 experienced more early rejection, more acute rejection after 90 days, and a clinically significant de

70 and lymphatic neovessels and rapid allograft rejection after corneal penetrating keratoplasty.

71 se corticosteroids effectively combats acute rejection after kidney transplantation, but at the cost

72 rgans with lower potential for immunological rejection after transplantation in humans.

73 Rejections after conversion were mostly cell-mediated.

74 immunosuppression, balancing risks for graft rejection against risks for infection.

75 Tacrolimus (Tac) is an effective anti-rejection agent in kidney transplantation, but its off-t

76 08-2.62]; P = 0.022) and biopsy-proven acute rejection (aHR, 1.71 [1.13-2.60]; P = 0.012).

77 ft biopsies from 51 ITx patients with severe rejection, alongside 37 stable controls, were analyzed u

78 Rejection also occurred if CXCR4 was deleted from donor

79 plicated in the process of chronic allograft rejection, also known as transplant vasculopathy.

80 R2(TCMR) correlated with histologic rejection although with many discrepancies, and R4(late)

81 iated rejection (9.2%) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) (13.8%).

82 Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) accounts for >50% of kidney allograft lo

83 ti-HLA antibodies (DSA) on antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) and kidney allograft failure is well est

84 Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) driven by the development of donor-speci

85 Active antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) is a potentially devastating complicatio

86 ed for desensitization and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) treatment by targeting CD20 found on B-l

87 ciation with occurrence of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) using a recently developed method.

88 l allograft survival after antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

89 ell-established feature of antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

90 mmation leading to chronic antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

91 nt pathway responsible for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR).

92 We used 12% subclinical cellular rejection and 3% subclinical antibody-mediated rejection

93 (AT1R) antibodies have been associated with rejection and allograft loss in solid organ transplantat

94 e allograft dysfunction were associated with rejection and allograft loss.

95 Ablation of LAL suppresses immune rejection and allows growth of human lung cancer cells i

96 pe of both acute and chronic T cell-mediated rejection and antibody-mediated rejection and discuss th

97 Neutralizing Tnfa should help in avoiding rejection and associated tissue injury in the allograft

98 i-INT was predicted by prior T-cell-mediated rejection and BKVAN, human leukocyte antigen mismatch, c

99 g IL-6/IL-6R to ameliorate chronic allograft rejection and coronary allograft vasculopathy.

100 del of T-cell-mediated human islet allograft rejection and developed a therapeutic regimen of low-dos

101 Rejection and diagnosis of congenital glaucoma were risk

102 ell-mediated rejection and antibody-mediated rejection and discuss the additive value of molecular pr

103 lial cells to eliminate risks of endothelial rejection and failure.

104 isk factor for accelerated cardiac allograft rejection and graft dysfunction .

105 Tacrolimus (Tac) is widely used to prevent rejection and graft loss in solid organ transplantation.

106 in the setting of diagnosing renal allograft rejection and how this will improve transplant patient c

107 antibodies, a factor contributing to chronic rejection and late allograft loss.

108 Additional studies investigating the risk of rejection and long-term graft function are needed before

109 in transplantation by accelerating allograft rejection and preventing tolerance induction.

110 t B cell depletion effectively prevents late rejection and promotes permanent acceptance of islet all

111 Graft rejection and rebubbling rates were similar in DMEK-only

112 atients need to be aware of the high risk of rejection and the poor remission rate with the use of ch

113 le in developing the concepts of immunologic rejection and tolerance, which led to him receiving the

114 dition to T cells, B cells can mediate graft rejection and transplantation tolerance.

115 shed light on the dynamics of ITx allograft rejection and treatment resistance, peripheral blood sam

116 All rejections and clinical borderline rejections in protoco

117 There were no hyperacute rejections and very infrequent acute rejection in the fi

118 d graft survival using Cox regression, acute rejection, and delayed graft function (DGF) using logist

119 ing social conflict, isolation, devaluation, rejection, and exclusion historically increased risk for

120 -year survival, cardiac or hepatic allograft rejection, and infection.

121 raft and patient survival, episodes of acute rejection, and its response to treatment.

122 s from respiratory specimens, acute cellular rejection, and lymphocytic bronchiolitis are associated

123 lyses, Pseudomonas isolation, acute cellular rejection, and lymphocytic bronchiolitis remained indepe

124 se score >=40, postoperative hospital stays, rejection, and nonanastomotic biliary strictures were hi

125 with cell-mediated and/or antibody-mediated rejection, and portend an adverse outcome.

126 opportunistic viral infections and of graft rejection, and should facilitate point-of-care post-tran

127 He experienced 6 acute rejections, and none were resistant to steroids.

128 uired for prior authorizations, the frequent rejections, and the perception of being excluded from th

129 ESW was associated with increased acute rejection (aOR=(1.09)1.16(1.23)), slightly increased gra

130 compare the risk of CMV infection and acute rejection (AR) among KT recipients by ATG dose.

131 cted (HIV+) persons are excellent, yet acute rejection (AR) is common and optimal immunosuppressive r

132 mation in a perivascular (acute perivascular rejection [AR]) or peribronchiolar (lymphocytic bronchio

133 In organ transplantation, infection and rejection are major causes of graft loss.

134 y allografts undergoing acute and/or chronic rejection are typically T cells and monocyte/macrophages

135 occurs; however, the added value of mucosal rejection assessment for patient management is unknown.

136 Peli1 ablation profoundly promotes tumor rejection, associated with increased tumor-infiltrating

137 ll as CXCL9 messenger RNA (a marker of graft rejection) at elevated levels in urine samples from pati

138 primary endpoint was biopsy-confirmed acute rejection (BCAR) within 60 weeks after transplantation;

139 Thereby the risk for rejection because of unnecessary reduction of immunosupp

140 und to be a low-yield screening modality for rejection beyond 6 months post-HT.

141 Biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) rates and types were compared between i

142 low-up, the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) was 77% (37/48) and 66% (31/47) (P = 0.

143 genes related to inflammation and allograft rejection but downregulation of oxidative phosphorylatio

144 The third was attributed to rejection, but improved after discontinuing the checkpoi

145 ADR-expressing T cells resist cellular rejection by targeting alloreactive lymphocytes in vitro

146 the donor template in yeast, limiting strand rejection by the Sgs1 and Mph1 helicases.

147 be compromised by chronic antibody-mediated rejection (CAMR), leading to irreversible necrosis of th

148 to prevent errors and could be replaced by a rejection comment specifying clinical situations that mi

149 who received ATG were at lower risk of acute rejection compared to those who received IL2RA (1-y crud

150 therapy was associated with fewer deaths and rejections, compared with standard immunosuppression tri

151 , not rejection activity, presumably because rejection confers risk via injury.

152 ity class II or CD40 in cDC1 impaired tumour rejection, consistent with a role for cognate CD4(+) T c

153 cimens showed grade 2A acute T cell-mediated rejection, cortical infarction, or acute tubular injury.

154 raphy in a memory paradigm assessing correct rejection (CR) of lures, item recognition (IR) and assoc

155 If rejection criteria were met, a committee mock-refused PC

156 PCR rejection criteria, based on white blood cell (WBC) and

157 We hypothesized that clinical rejection defined by concurrent new-onset heart failure

158 ore strongly associated with future CAV than rejection diagnosed on protocol biopsy.

159 ubjects, 106 remained rejection-free, 77 had rejection diagnosed only on protocol biopsy (>=2R cellul

160 Subjects with rejection diagnosed only on protocol biopsy were not at

161 but it is unknown whether the type of acute rejection differs between these patient groups or whethe

162 The data indicates that higher-grade skin rejection does not occur in absence of mucosal rejection

163 factors associated with biopsy-proven acute rejection during the first post-transplant year in a pre

164 asive biomarkers to identify the presence of rejection, endoscopy and biopsy remain the gold standard

165 tive probabilities of infection, first acute rejection episode, malignancy, de novo donor specific an

166 Of the 196, 37 (18.9%) had a previous acute rejection episode; 96 (49%) had concurrent i score = 0.

167 ndependent predictors of CAV were: number of rejection episodes (cause-specific hazard ratio [95% con

168 T cell-mediated rejection episodes tended to be relatively mild-50% (5 e

169 onor-specific human leukocyte antigen Abs or rejection episodes were noted, even though the patients

170 Despite the rejection episodes, the vast majority of recipients had

171 of rapamycin immunosuppression, and an acute rejection event were independent risk factors for EW gai

172 entify articles that provide data on mucosal rejection following fVCA.

173 of FcgammaRIIB correlated with freedom from rejection following withdrawal from immunosuppression in

174 mbranes; however, challenges such as low ion rejection for high salinity water, low water flux, and l

175 Secondary endpoints included death-censored rejection-free survival and the frequency of extracorpor

176 Cox-regression analysis of rejection-free survival revealed better results for mTOR

177 Of 228 study subjects, 106 remained rejection-free, 77 had rejection diagnosed only on proto

178 Mucosal rejection frequently occurs; however, the added value of

179 quantified the association of ESW with acute rejection, graft failure, and mortality using multivaria

180 were treatment failure (biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, or death), delayed graft function

181 fic antibodies (P=0.004), and acute cellular rejection >=2R (P=0.028).

182 re early rejections (<1 y) or any late acute rejection (>1 y) have been associated with coronary arte

183 ansplant cohort (n = 21 no rejection; n = 42 rejection, >1R) with an area under the curve of 0.87 (P

184 nalysis of liver transplant biopsies detects rejection, has the potential to resolve ambiguities, and

185 i versus MPA in terms of biopsy-proven acute rejection (hazard ratio [confidence interval], 0.32 [0.1

186 1-1.18), and a higher risk for treated acute rejection (hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43-1.86).

187 ter surgery with minimal risk of immunologic rejection, herpetic recurrence and graft failure.

188 (RA), endothelial cell density, immunologic rejection, herpetic recurrence, and graft failure rates.

189 ificant volumetric changes during ion uptake/rejection, i.e., during doping/de-doping and charging/di

190 eer influence and hypersensitivity to social rejection in adolescence increase the likelihood of both

191 G12C inhibitor AMG 510 can potentiate immune rejection in combination with immune checkpoint blockade

192 ein S-RNase contributes to S-specific pollen rejection in conspecific crosses, as well as to rejectin

193 several medications used to prevent or treat rejection in orthotopic heart transplantation.

194 We further demonstrate that late graft rejection in recipients treated with this regimen is ass

195 opic immune mechanisms that facilitate tumor rejection in several tumor models.

196 eracute rejections and very infrequent acute rejection in the first year suggesting no evidence for i

197 There was no clinical rejection in the first year; subclinical rejection was d

198 Histologic criteria for diagnosing acute rejection in vascularized composite tissue allograft (VC

199 All rejections and clinical borderline rejections in protocol biopsies were treated.

200 melanoma cells is inhibited, up to complete rejection, in Siah2(-/-) mice.

201 in 188 of 1763 (10.7%) blood samples and any rejection (including borderline changes) in 614 of 1763

202 pulations in ischemia-reperfusion injury and rejection, including their interaction with allograft-in

203 Induction of rejection is a rare event.

204 of immunomonitoring, we found that while ITx rejection is associated with proinflammatory and activat

205 Renal allograft rejection is more frequent under belatacept-based, compa

206 As a result, antibody-mediated rejection is now widely recognized as the main cause of

207 The increased bias to rejection is partially explained by changes in synaptic

208 ithin kidney transplants or play any role in rejection is unknown, however, in part because of limite

209 maintenance therapy groups, the frequency of rejection limits the practical implementation of this st

210 face of the cornea, there was an endothelial rejection line (Khodadoust line) with keratic precipitat

211 othelial graft rejection with an endothelial rejection line occurring 1 year after the procedure.

212 Two or more early rejections (<1 y) or any late acute rejection (>1 y) hav

213 inflammatory events including acute cellular rejection, lymphocytic bronchiolitis, and Pseudomonas is

214 Rationale: Acute rejection, manifesting as lymphocytic inflammation in a

215 o ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) or graft rejection may be silenced to improve organ quality after

216 transplantation regarding antibody-mediated rejection may not systematically apply to VCA.

217 fers between these patient groups or whether rejection mediates the effect between ethnicity, death-c

218 other VCA patients, vascular injury in mild rejection might warrant a different clinical approach.

219 hereas DC-GF patients experienced more early rejection, more acute rejection after 90 days, and a cli

220 5), persistent infection (n = 14) or de novo rejection (n = 11) 6 months following a standardized red

221 ry allograft vasculopathy (n=86, 70%), prior rejection (n=76, 62%), presence of donor-specific antibo

222 t adult cardiac transplant cohort (n = 21 no rejection; n = 42 rejection, >1R) with an area under the

223 hin 10 years, 4% of eyes developed allograft rejection, no primary graft failures occurred, and 6% of

224 of endoscopic evaluation, episodes of acute rejection, nutritional therapy, and renal function betwe

225 The metal rejection obtained was greater than 99%.

226 similar in DMEK-only and triple-DMEK groups: rejection occured in 8.8% and 8.75% of cases respectivel

227 s 2.7% (P < .0001), and future or persistent rejection occurred in 9 of 42 patients (21.4%) vs 0% (P

228 The majority of rejections occurred within 3 months following HT.

229 aching 234.9 +/- 8.1 kg m(-2) h(-1) and salt rejection of 99.7 +/- 0.2 %, outperforming existing memb

230 constant expression of CD28 accelerated the rejection of allogeneic skin grafts in young RAG2(-/-) r

231 ed from mutations, and leads to an effective rejection of both virus-injected and distant tumors.

232 defense of cultural worldviews, and violent rejection of democratic principles and the rule of law).

233 (GzmB) expression and the ability to promote rejection of established tumors.

234 fts were rejected at the same time points as rejection of fully allogeneic grafts.

235 E (HLA-E), inhibits antibody-mediated immune rejection of heart allografts.

236 marrow stem cell transplantation where early rejection of immunologically mismatched grafts is driven

237 t chemical contaminants and the insufficient rejection of low-molecular-weight neutral organics by RO

238 e increased by 100% without compromising the rejection of Na(2)SO(4).

239 Testing and rejection of noncognate TCs on a sub-ms timescale is ess

240 mmune hemolytic anemia and antibody-mediated rejection of organ transplants.

241 al partners) is strongly associated with the rejection of sacrifices for the greater good (especially

242 arental investment among vertebrates, is the rejection of the nonself-embryo.

243 irst reported small molecule able to prevent rejection of transplanted bone marrow stem cells in vivo

244 itors are immunosuppressants used to prevent rejection of transplanted organs and tissues.

245 he need to develop a model that predicts the rejection of various organics.

246 icular, we show that acceptance (compared to rejection) of curiosity-driven or incentive-driven gambl

247 poses a far greater risk for future CAV than rejection on protocol biopsy in pediatric HT recipients.

248 le control patients were not associated with rejection or allograft loss.

249 rs resulted in CD8 and PD-L1-dependent tumor rejection or growth inhibition and a reduction in myeloi

250 ACR compared to acute tubular injury without rejection or pretransplant "normal kidney" biopsy sample

251 = 2.67; 95% CI = 1.12-6.32), and acute graft rejection (OR = 3.01; 95% CI = 1.78-5.09).

252 not associated with de novo DSA development, rejection, or allograft loss.

253 ransition from low rejection to near-perfect rejection over a solute size range smaller than half Ang

254 prior allograft failure as a result of acute rejection (P < .001) or disease recurrence (P = .003), b

255 odies and significantly increase the odds of rejection (P < .1).

256 P=0.04) and mortality (P=0.003), but not for rejection (P=0.6).

257 to proteasome inhibitor-based therapy for 4 rejection phenotypes and to determine factors that predi

258 highest mortality and post-mortem inspection rejections, poorest walking ability, most hock burn and

259 Clinical rejection poses a far greater risk for future CAV than r

260 ibe the immunosuppressive regimens and graft rejection rates in living-related HLA-identical (LR HLAi

261 Rejection rates in the study and control groups were 19.

262 (93.8% vs 80.9% HLA non-ID LDKTx, p<0.001), rejection rates were lower (after 1 year 9.6% vs 27.1%;

263 Primary outcomes included graft survival and rejection rates, and secondary outcomes included rates o

264 drate antigens (Ags) are critical drivers of rejection reactions to ABO-incompatible allogeneic graft

265 odies and, on prolonged treatment, modulated rejection-related gene-expression patterns.

266 based on expression of previously annotated rejection-related transcripts identified 4 groups: norma

267 ul strategies to induce suppression of graft rejection relies on inhibition of T-cell activation.

268 Endothelial failure and immunological graft rejection remain long-term complications leading to late

269 As expected, tumour rejection required cDC1 and CD8(+) T cell priming requir

270 tumor response and T cell-mediated allograft rejection requiring reinitiation of hemodialysis.

271 This approach enables generation of rejection-resistant, 'off-the-shelf', allogeneic T-cell

272 othesized to be secondary to either a tissue rejection response to the haploidentical fetus or from a

273 major issue for MC codes based on acceptance-rejection sampling.

274 jection and 3% subclinical antibody-mediated rejection (SC-ABMR) for the base-case cohort.

275 Subclinical rejection (SCR) screening in kidney transplantation (KT)

276 T cell-mediated rejection seems to form a continuum of alloimmune activa

277 l En/DMT correlated significantly with graft rejection severity (r = 0.972, r = 0.729, and r = 0.823,

278 lets maintained euglycemia and delayed graft rejection significantly longer than those receiving none

279 leukocyte donor/recipient ratio varied with rejection status for macrophages and with time post-tran

280 ation of recipient leukocytes, regardless of rejection status, and in tolerant mixed hematopoietic ch

281 ides capable of mediating T cell-based tumor rejection still face important challenges.

282 ood histocompatibility with no immunological rejection, support vascularized tissue ingrowth, and pro

283 mal "R1(normal) " (N = 129), T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) "R2(TCMR) " (N = 37), early injury "R3(

284 eria for chronic active (CA) T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline, and antibody-mediated reje

285 ients suffered an episode of T-cell-mediated rejection (TCMR).

286 kidney BKVN (n = 5) vs pure T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR; n = 10).

287 ially overlooked in favor of T cell-mediated rejection, the importance of the humoral alloimmune resp

288 nock-ins enables the visualization of tissue rejection through individual target cell-killing events

289 es, yielding a step-wise transition from low rejection to near-perfect rejection over a solute size r

290 t of whether the fine balance between immune rejection versus tolerance is achieved with various appl

291 the role of early vascular lesions in graft rejection warrants additional analysis.

292 Rejection was associated with proliferation of recipient

293 cal rejection in the first year; subclinical rejection was detected by protocol biopsy in 4 patients.

294 Although rejection was not uniform in the belatacept maintenance

295 Factors associated with rejection were age of recipient (OR, 0.91 [0.84-0.96]; P

296 Here, we present a case of endothelial graft rejection with an endothelial rejection line occurring 1

297 tcomes were excellent; a trend toward higher rejection with D+ raises concerns that merit further inv

298 n/DMT maps can diagnose active corneal graft rejection with excellent accuracy, sensitivity, and spec

299 Two were biopsy-proven acute rejections with subsequent graft failures.

300 mpared to IL2RA, may lower the risk of acute rejection without increasing hepatic complications in HC