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 ndicating an activating effect of CRP on the donor cell.

4 All patients engrafted with donor cells.

5 mice reveals survival and engraftment of the donor cells.

6 ell chimerism or the proportion of malignant donor cells.

7 Host cells were attracted to Wnt11 donor cells.

8 conjugative plasmid RP4 present in adjacent donor cells.

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

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

11 and severity of inflammation induced by the donor cells.

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

13 cellular immune responses primed directly by donor cells.

14 levels correlated with higher percentages of donor cells.

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

16 d by intravenous transplantation of the same donor cells.

17 signaling between conjugative recipient and donor cells.

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

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

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

21 se livers permit extensive repopulation with donor cells.

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

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

24 ssing three fluorescent viruses were used as donor cells.

25 erived mesenchymal stem cells from Snuppy as donor cells.

26 ing mixtures of cells and neuronal types, as donor cells.

27 a patients compared with age-matched healthy donor cells.

28 ne predominantly at the cell poles in ICEBs1 donor cells.

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

30 conjugative pili) that are elaborated by DNA donor cells.

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

32 patterns that differed from those in unused donor cells.

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

34 genotype and the phenotype conferred by the donor cells.

35 most commonly due to material transfer from donor cells.

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

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

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

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

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

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

42 ated splenocytes required Fc gamma RI on the donor cell and Fc gamma RIIb in the recipient mice.

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

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

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

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

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

48 transplant acceptance model using male DO.11 donor cells and female BALB/c recipient mice showed that

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

64 Interestingly, sporadic wild-type RPE donor cells are not sufficient to maintain proper retina

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 The authors explored donor cell behavior using human cortical neural progenit

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

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

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

76 4(+) DC are rapidly depleted and replaced by donor cells, but recipient macrophages can be found in G

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

93 e repopulation assays showed that Fancc(-/-) donor cells cultured with the JNK inhibitor had equivale

94 of donor chimerism compared with Fancc(-/-) donor cells cultured with vehicle control.

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

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

97 the cardiac environment, resulting in acute donor cell death and a subsequent loss of cardiac functi

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

99 In vivo BLI revealed acute donor cell death of MSC, SkMb, and Fibro within 3 weeks

100 nsplantation, both cell types showed drastic donor cell death within 4 to 5 weeks.

101 leotidyl transferase (TdT)(+/+) and TdT(-/-) donor cells, demonstrate preferential repertoire-based s

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

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

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

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

106 whereas all mice receiving wild type BCR-ABL donor cells died with CML-like disease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

113 Donor cells engrafted into bones and differentiated into

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

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

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

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

118 Donor cell engraftment was confirmed using fluorescent i

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

120 of plasma FVIII activity after hematopoietic donor cell engraftment.

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

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

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

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

125 us stochastic process where almost all mouse donor cells eventually give rise to iPS cells on continu

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 1 recipient mice, substantial proportions of donor cells expressed IFN-gamma or both IFN-gamma and IL

130 Use of cultured thymocyte-derived donor cells expressing a functionally null Arf-GFP knock

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

132 se could be critical in transplantation with donor cells expressing NIMAs.

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

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

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

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

137 of umbilical cord blood (UCB) as a source of donor cells for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

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

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 GBECs might be used as donor cells in a cell transplantation approach for the 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 The artefactual appearance of integrated donor cells in host retinas following transplantation is

156 iciently sampling a large volume surrounding donor cells in liquid culture and in establishing and ma

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

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

159 that can accurately determine low levels of donor cells in recipients with same-sex bone marrow tran

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

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

168 s given kidney transplants and hematopoietic donor cell infusions.

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

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

171 The donor cells integrated into the rat cerebellum developin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

198 red by conjugating recombinant products from donor cells overexpressing integrase and quantifying the

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

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

201 CEBs1 from B. subtilis likely initiates at a donor cell pole, and that ICEBs1 affects the subcellular

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

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

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

205 functional repair derived from a therapeutic donor cell population.

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

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

208 n markedly mismatched to donors, and limited donor cells preclude cross-matching.

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

210 Donor cell preparations containing B cells were able to

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

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

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

214 ent include host hematolymphoid ablation and donor cell regeneration, which is altered by pharmacolog

215 Donor cells replaced both globule-containing and globule

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

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

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

219 retention of Arf in thymocyte-derived ICN1+ donor cells significantly delayed disease onset and supp

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

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

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

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

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

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

226 , mice infected with a pathogen carrying the donor cell-specific Ag (inflammation plus Ag), or into m

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

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

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

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

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

232 scular diseases has been limited by impaired donor cell survival attributed to rejection and an unava

233 Bioluminescence imaging showed poor donor cell survival by week 8.

234 rphologic substrates was seen, together with donor cell survival even in the xenograft paradigm.

235 tial for erythropoietin signaling to promote donor cell survival in a model of myoblast transplantati

236 Donor cells survived as a single layer in the subretinal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

253 along with progenitor cells, and ability of donor cells to produce IFN-gamma.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

272 somes of an embryonic or CD4(+) T lymphocyte donor cell, we observed nuclear reprogramming and effici

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

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

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

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

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

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

279 al distribution of red/green opsin where the donor cells were distributed.

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

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

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

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

284 failed BMT, because almost all CFSE-labeled donor cells were killed at 0.5 and 3 h in sensitized rec

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

292 DPPIV+ donor cells were transplanted 24 hours after HIR (0-50 G

293 When male donor cells were transplanted into female recipients, en

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

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

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

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

300 s contradict the idea that removal of mature donor cells worsens immune recovery post-HCT.