ライフサイエンスコーパス: donor-specific

1 It is incompletely understood how donor-specific Ab binding to graft endothelium promotes

2 Importantly, the subclass of donor-specific Ab may influence its pathogenesis.

3 Gp2 became sensitized to donor-specific AB-I or pig antigens within 2 weeks.

4 x-detected anti-HLA Abs classes I and II and donor-specific Abs (DSA) classes I and II.

5 Sensitized recipients with pretransplant donor-specific Abs are at higher risk for Ab-mediated re

6 ath-censored allograft loss in patients with donor-specific alloantibodies (DSA) mean florescence int

7 ntigen, zinc transporter type 8 antigen) and donor-specific alloantibodies (DSA) were quantified.

8 LT) recipients with preformed or de novo HLA donor-specific alloantibodies (DSA).

9 idates on waiting lists, and the presence of donor-specific alloantibodies (DSAs) at the time of tran

10 extended allograft survival, indicating that donor-specific alloantibodies (not T cells) were the cri

11 lasmablast numbers, as well as production of donor-specific alloantibodies and complement deposition

12 After perioperative inflammation subsided, donor-specific alloantibodies were passively transferred

13 No recipients produced donor-specific alloantibodies.

14 Adding the presence of donor-specific alloantibody at 1 year did not improve pr

15 n of host sensitization based on circulating donor-specific alloantibody levels.

16 s at 1-year surveillance biopsy and/or serum donor-specific alloantibody status could improve predict

17 erum creatinine levels, high serum titers of donor-specific alloantibody, minimal T cell infiltration

18 Enhanced mixed chimerism leads to long-term donor-specific allograft tolerance.

19 lopment of interstitial fibrosis and de novo donor specific anti-HLA antibodies (dnDSA) at 1 year.

20 De novo donor specific anti-HLA antibodies (dnDSA) may cause gra

21 until April 2013, patients who showed early donor specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) after lung tran

22 epopulating B cells and its correlation with donor-specific anti-HLA Ab development and long-term gra

23 ed with patients with non-complement-binding donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (93%) and patients wi

24 ti-HLA antibodies (93%) and patients without donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (94%) (P<0.001 for bo

25 se PTC C4d+ staining had higher frequency of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) (67% and 82%) a

26 Donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) are a major cau

27 Screening for donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA) using bead-base

28 acteristics (allograft biopsy specimen), and donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA).

29 y indicate the clinical relevance of de novo donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSA).

30 the biopsy were screened for the presence of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSAs) and their abil

31 islets and determined that the appearance of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies (DSAs) did not accele

32 The presence of complement-binding donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies after transplantation

33 Patients with complement-binding donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies after transplantation

34 ere screened for the presence of circulating donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies and their complement-

35 ssment of the complement-binding capacity of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies appears to be useful

36 al transplant candidates with high levels of donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies have low transplantat

37 Adding complement-binding donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies to a traditional risk

38 and have been postulated to be activated by donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies triggering their CD16

39 Circulating donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies were significantly as

40 Circulating donor-specific anti-HLA antibodies were significantly as

41 dividual risk stratification on the basis of donor-specific anti-HLA antibody (anti-HLA DSA) characte

42 With standard IgG donor-specific anti-HLA antibody (DSA) testing, it is un

43 ons (55% vs 11%, P < 0.01) with detection of donor-specific anti-HLAabs.

44 2008 and 2010, we enrolled 125 patients with donor-specific anti-human HLA antibodies (DSA) detected

45 ponses in renal transplantation, and de novo donor-specific anti-human leucocyte antigen antibodies (

46 Patients with pretransplantation strong donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibo

47 scribing the incidence and impact of de novo donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibo

48 laries as well as the absence of C1q-binding donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen alloantibody

49 Many patients develop de novo donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies (

50 Although preformed donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibodies (

51 d by simultaneous occurrence of pAMR on EMB, donor specific antibodies and allograft dysfunction.

52 converse occurs, and whether changes on non-donor specific antibodies are associated with any outcom

53 C1q+ donor specific antibodies were reduced in 2 C1-INH treat

54 %) and their recipient had unacceptably high donor-specific antibodies (28%).

55 s; P<0.001), increased occurrence of de novo donor-specific antibodies (52% vs. 13%; P=0.001), and no

56 is a risk factor for development of de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) and can contribute to

57 Recent evidence suggests that de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) are associated with an

58 be used in a cohort of patients with de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) as an early marker to

59 role of protocol kidney biopsies for de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) in kidney transplant r

60 Production of de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) is a major risk factor

61 Development of de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) is associated with lat

62 In renal transplant patients with de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSA) we studied the value o

63 De novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSAs) have been associated

64 Development of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) after lung transplantati

65 itive cytomegalovirus serostatus (P = 0.02), donor-specific antibodies (DSA) against HLA class II (P

66 g Banff 2007 criteria along with presence of donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and acute rise in serum

67 ibody-mediated rejection (CAABMR), with C4d, donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and other lesions of chr

68 High titer donor-specific antibodies (DSA) and positive crossmatch

69 It is widely accepted that HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) are associated with anti

70 Donor-specific antibodies (DSA) are considered as reliab

71 ected at donor human leukocyte antigen (HLA) donor-specific antibodies (DSA) associated with adverse

72 Circulating donor-specific antibodies (DSA) cause profound changes i

73 Circulating donor-specific antibodies (DSA) detected on bead arrays

74 Postkidney transplant donor-specific antibodies (DSA) have been identified as

75 and 24 months protocol biopsies and anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) in 140 low immunological

76 on into sensitized patients with preexisting donor-specific antibodies (DSA) is very challenging.

77 Presence of circulating donor-specific antibodies (DSA) may be associated with w

78 occur in patients with preexisting anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSA) or in patients who devel

79 Anti-HLA antibodies and especially donor-specific antibodies (DSA) play a significant role

80 were: HLA antibodies at transplant, de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSA), antibody-mediated rejec

81 verity of each patient and were negative for donor-specific antibodies (DSA), C4d, and microcirculati

82 ive (CM) patients were tested for C1q-fixing donor-specific antibodies (DSA).

83 study including 85 biopsies of patients with donor-specific antibodies (DSA).

84 radigm with respect to the interpretation of donor-specific antibodies (DSA).

85 , such as capillary C4d or complement-fixing donor-specific antibodies (DSA).

86 antibodies are the predominant HLA class II donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) after transplantation.

87 Complement-activating anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) are associated with imp

88 Preexisting, donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) are culprits of hyperac

89 The effect of low titers of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) detected only by sensit

90 The role of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) in AAD, with the increa

91 but the relationship between BK viremia and donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) is unexplored.

92 y an inhibitory effect on the development of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) make it an interesting

93 phocyte/flow crossmatch was negative; and if donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) were absent in the firs

94 (IgG) subclass and C1q binding activity for donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) were determined.

95 st-transplantation, subjects without de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSAs), AR, or inflammation at

96 ith the presence of TRIs (P=0.04) along with donor-specific antibodies (P=0.01).

97 enal allograft recipients (67 with preformed donor-specific antibodies [DSAs]) with 281 indication bi

98 Although a link between donor-specific antibodies against human leukocyte antige

99 Preexisting donor-specific antibodies against human leukocyte antige

100 ansplant biopsies from patients with de novo donor-specific antibodies and eighteen 1-year surveillan

101 IdeS reduced or eliminated donor-specific antibodies and permitted HLA-incompatible

102 ts augment early inflammation in response to donor-specific antibodies and that platelet-derived medi

103 cases because of the presence of high titer donor-specific antibodies and the potential of the liver

104 ar, only those who further developed de novo donor-specific antibodies and transplant glomerulopathy

105 Eighty-six of these recipients had donor-specific antibodies and underwent protocol biopsy,

106 Donor-specific antibodies are also formed de novo, and t

107 Current therapies to modify donor-specific antibodies are limited and ineffective in

108 wed decreased mean fluorescence intensity of donor-specific antibodies as soon as day 12, with no sig

109 s), immunostaining, and circulating anti-HLA donor-specific antibodies at the time of biopsy, togethe

110 ugh none of the nine subjects had detectable donor-specific antibodies before or after transplantatio

111 Donor-specific antibodies create an immunologic barrier

112 Donor-specific antibodies detected by solid-phase assays

113 Donor-specific antibodies detected by solid-phase assays

114 with an increased risk of developing de novo donor-specific antibodies during the first year posttran

115 r-specific HLA antibodies and/or increase in donor-specific antibodies from pretransplant levels are

116 he presence and, importantly, the absence of donor-specific antibodies in an international study of p

117 itivity for human leukocyte antigen class II donor-specific antibodies in the R group.

118 totoxicity against stromal cells coated with donor-specific antibodies in vitro.

119 croarray allows detailed characterization of donor-specific antibodies necessary for effective transp

120 Neither donor-specific antibodies nor vascular Cd4 deposits were

121 The negative effect of donor-specific antibodies on the success of solid transp

122 gnosis of isolated G (isG) in the absence of donor-specific antibodies or G in combination with T cel

123 The existing donor-specific antibodies or moderate microvascular infl

124 Whether the absence of donor-specific antibodies reflects absence of a B cell r

125 , and significantly higher levels of class I donor-specific antibodies than those in the Swedish stud

126 participate in allograft lesions mediated by donor-specific antibodies through antibody-dependent cel

127 AMR is caused by donor-specific antibodies to HLA, which contribute to TA

128 o the donor or immunity masked by binding of donor-specific antibodies to the graft is not known.

129 llaritis (g>/=1 and ptc>/=1) with detectable donor-specific antibodies was observed in some recipient

130 llaritis (g>/=1 and ptc>/=1) with detectable donor-specific antibodies was observed in some recipient

131 Donor-specific antibodies were elevated in three patient

132 Donor-specific antibodies were evaluated using solid-pha

133 merulitis and detectable posttransplantation donor-specific antibodies were risk factors for TxGN (P<

134 merulitis and detectable posttransplantation donor-specific antibodies were risk factors for TxGN (P<

135 m anti-HLA antibodies to donor HLA antigens (donor-specific antibodies) and serum MHC class 1-related

136 ients (negative flow crossmatch and positive donor-specific antibodies) treated with tacrolimus.

137 ury, (2) may occur before the development of donor-specific antibodies, (3) predict the development o

138 toring revealed transient moderate levels of donor-specific antibodies, adequate immunocompetence, an

139 eloped anti-HLA antibodies, of which 6% were donor-specific antibodies, and 6% developed anti-MICA an

140 ent monitoring for adverse events, outcomes, donor-specific antibodies, and renal function was perfor

141 ironment insults (i.e. abnormal physiology), donor-specific antibodies, and T cell-mediated immunity.

142 MR score was associated with the presence of donor-specific antibodies, biopsy indication, Banff ct,

143 The four diagnostic tenets of donor-specific antibodies, C4d staining, histopathologic

144 tches, and/or the presence of high levels of donor-specific antibodies, on the outcomes of simultaneo

145 sociated with the risk of developing de novo donor-specific antibodies, therapeutic immunosuppression

146 mediated rejection (ABMR) in the presence of donor-specific antibodies.

147 ble, and 22 recipients had unacceptably high donor-specific antibodies.

148 and allograft dysfunction in recipients with donor-specific antibodies.

149 mechanisms underlying the downregulation of donor-specific antibodies.

150 e 1-year eGFR only in kidney recipients with donor-specific antibodies.

151 zation and the development of posttransplant donor-specific antibodies.

152 or suboptimal immunosuppression and de novo donor-specific antibodies.

153 s, peritubular capillary C4d deposition, and donor-specific antibodies.

154 rejection, viral infections, and class 1 HLA donor-specific antibodies.

155 The second patient developed donor-specific antibodies; some months after CT were fir

156 ches serve as potential epitopes for de novo donor specific antibody development and correlate with l

157 = 55 nondirected donors, performance of only donor specific antibody negative transplants, the requir

158 fined as 3 of 4 criteria: renal dysfunction, donor specific antibody, C4d positivity on biopsy, and h

159 We hypothesized that HLA class II de novo donor-specific antibody (dnDSA) development correlates w

160 We hypothesized that de novo donor-specific antibody (DSA) causes complement-dependen

161 On average, the level of HLA class I donor-specific antibody (DSA) decreased by 32%, whereas

162 Avoiding donor-specific antibody (DSA) is difficult for sensitize

163 e the prevalence and investigate the role of donor-specific antibody (DSA) on intestinal graft outcom

164 lants and pregnancies as sensitizing events, donor-specific antibody (DSA) relative intensity scores

165 1 for cause biopsies [FCBx]) with concurrent donor-specific antibody (DSA) studies, C4d staining, and

166 ly associated with the generation of de novo donor-specific antibody (DSA), antibody-mediated-rejecti

167 R decline by halting the progression of late donor-specific antibody (DSA)-positive ABMR.

168 part by increasing circulation/production of donor-specific antibody (DSA).

169 idual donor-recipient HLA mismatch to induce donor-specific antibody (DSA).

170 aft outcomes among patients desensitized for donor-specific antibody (HLA-incompatible) is unknown.

171 ) after adjustment for pretransplant/de novo donor-specific antibody and delayed graft function.

172 Donor-specific antibody avoidance and reduction strategi

173 al transplant patients who had no detectable donor-specific antibody before transplantation.

174 xp3(+) cells within donor grafts, diminished donor-specific antibody formation, and delayed rejection

175 ral clearance while preventing rejection and donor-specific antibody formation.

176 Overall mean donor-specific antibody frequencies were comparable for

177 creatinine, panel reactive antibody levels, donor-specific antibody frequency, or mean fluorescence

178 immunosuppression for prevention of de novo donor-specific antibody generation at the individual lev

179 Because the development of donor-specific antibody is associated with early graft l

180 nel-reactive antibody was 60+/-33 and median donor-specific antibody level was a mean fluorescence in

181 ere the beta2fHC or pepF-beta2aHC normalized donor-specific antibody level would reveal the true anti

182 Donor-specific antibody levels were measured by single a

183 ntation grade (P<0.001) and association with donor-specific antibody levels.

184 living donors/151 deceased donors) patients (donor-specific antibody positive, PRA>80%) were desensit

185 Those with donor-specific antibody requiring desensitization and in

186 The strength of a donor-specific antibody should be assessed with a bead-s

187 es a prognostic value independent of initial donor-specific antibody status, previous immunologic eve

188 Donor-specific antibody strength and number were reduced

189 e Banff Working Groups, the relationships of donor-specific antibody tests (anti-HLA and non-HLA) wit

190 population was 267 consecutive patients with donor-specific antibody undergoing desensitization.

191 De novo alloantibodies (donor-specific antibody) contribute to antibody-mediated

192 immunological risk and sensitized (including donor-specific antibody) patients, immunosuppressive com

193 sing serum creatinine with marked rebound of donor-specific antibody, and a biopsy that showed featur

194 sensitized recipients (positive cross-match, donor-specific antibody, and elevated panel reactive ant

195 persistently chimeric subject has developed donor-specific antibody, and renal function has remained

196 r in combination with (1/2) dose CsA reduced donor-specific antibody, intragraft transcripts for chem

197 The increase in frequency of donor-specific antibody-secreting cells after renal tran

198 all exhibited increases in the frequency of donor-specific antibody-secreting cells eight weeks afte

199 We enumerated donor-specific antibody-secreting cells in the blood of

200 ts: the ABMR Molecular Score and endothelial donor-specific antibody-selective transcript set.

201 CI], 1.37 to 3.58; P=0.001) and endothelial donor-specific antibody-selective transcripts (HR, 3.02;

202 ated rejection on the basis of histology and donor-specific antibody.

203 the presence of microcirculation lesions and donor-specific antibody.

204 , and occur more frequently in patients with donor-specific antibody.

205 significant at 8 years across all levels of donor-specific antibody: 89.2% for recipients of kidney

206 A2(+) skin allografts resulted in a surge of donor-specific (antiYHLA.A2) immunoglobulin (Ig)G antibo

207 troversial, however, is the possibility that donor-specific B cells and the Abs that they produce are

208 Scarcely anyone would dispute that donor-specific B cells and the Abs that they produce can

209 Using novel tracking tools to monitor donor-specific B cells, alloreactive B cells were shown

210 , clodronate pre-treatment increased durable donor-specific BALB/c skin allograft tolerance.

211 aive (untreated) or made immune or tolerant (donor-specific BALB/c splenocyte transfusion -/+ anti-CD

212 llo-hMSC patient developed an elevated (>80) donor-specific calculated panel reactive antibody level.

213 Endogenous donor-specific CD8 T cells were tracked down using major

214 6B to cross-present donor antigens to induce donor-specific CD8(+) CD11c(+) T cells with regulatory p

215 ion, structure, CCL21 presence, and Treg and donor-specific cell location relative to high endothelia

216 recipients of male donors for chromosome Y (donor)-specific dd-cfDNA.

217 Hence, this method is suitable for the donor specific enrichment and proteomic analysis of neur

218 pothesized that transplanted tissues release donor-specific exosomes into recipient circulation and t

219 f CD8 T cells from HIV(+) and HIV(neg) human donors, specific for HIV and/or respiratory syncytial vi

220 specific expression show that iPSCs retain a donor-specific gene expression pattern.

221 ificant DSA antibody rise no significant non-donor specific HLA antibody, viral or blood group antibo

222 antibodies, of which 52 (36.9%) were de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) (34 SPK, 18 IP).

223 The role of donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) after pediatric live

224 serum creatinine together with reduction of donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) below 500 mean fluor

225 The role of de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) in liver transplanta

226 Complement fixation by donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) is a primary mechani

227 The development of donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) is associated with w

228 d analysis of patient and graft survival and donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) were performed.

229 The association of donor-specific HLA antibodies (DSA) with kidney graft fa

230 Post-transplant, development of de novo donor-specific HLA antibodies and/or increase in donor-s

231 Donor-specific HLA antibodies increased in two patients

232 Donor-specific HLA antibodies significantly lower allogr

233 e identified in two additional patients (non-donor-specific HLA antibodies).

234 nd they were associated with post-transplant donor-specific HLA antibodies, antibody-mediated rejecti

235 bead assays allow for detection of recipient donor-specific HLA antibodies, enabling prediction of co

236 ntibody-mediated rejection in the absence of donor-specific HLA antibodies.

237 on histology (microcirculation lesions) and donor-specific HLA antibody.

238 nized that patients may become sensitized to donor-specific HLA antigens as a result of previous anti

239 These findings suggest that donor-specific HLA class I antibodies directly activate

240 Donor-specific HLA sensitization developed in 2 MPC and

241 pients mounted responses to CMV presented by donor-specific HLA, despite the detection of CMV antigen

242 De novo donor-specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibodies

243 im was to determine the incidence of de novo donor-specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) antibody (d

244 The development of donor-specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class I ant

245 is a more robust biomarker of tolerance than donor-specific hyporeactivity.

246 All demonstrated donor-specific hyporesponsiveness and were weaned from f

247 linical rejection on protocol biopsy despite donor-specific hyporesponsiveness.

248 accommodation with concurrent inhibition of donor-specific immune memory is likely to be involved.

249 of mixed hematopoietic chimerism results in donor-specific immunological tolerance by apoptosis-medi

250 Donor-specific immunological tolerance using high doses

251 Donor-specific induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) can

252 ion primary response gene 88 (MyD88) induced donor-specific kidney allograft tolerance.

253 hich these cells prolong graft survival in a donor-specific manner is unknown.

254 is led to the generation of a highly anergic donor-specific medicinal product containing an average o

255 In the experimental model, donor-specific MHC I antibodies significantly increased

256 c allografts were passively transferred with donor-specific MHC I antibodies, mTOR inhibition signifi

257 c allografts were passively transferred with donor-specific MHC I antibodies.

258 We report the observation of donor-specific mitochondrial cfDNA in the circulation of

259 tional B cell proportions and either de novo donor-specific or nondonor-specific antibody (dnDSA; dnN

260 further stained to define ILC subsets and a donor-specific or recipient-specific HLA marker to analy

261 Hematopoietic chimerism is known to promote donor-specific organ allograft tolerance; however, clini

262 ositive antibodies, although not necessarily donor-specific (P < 0.001).

263 rial follow-up of peripheral blood indicated donor-specific posttransplant unresponsiveness in micro-

264 AR were associated with increased donor-specific production of interferon (IFN)-gamma and

265 within host retinae that express an array of donor-specific proteins.

266 short-term LFA-1 blockade promoted long-term donor-specific regulation, which resulted in attenuated

267 We previously showed that donor-specific regulatory T-lymphocytes prevent rejectio

268 achieve durable hematopoietic chimerism and donor-specific skin allograft tolerance and justify furt

269 Tolerance was not observed because donor-specific skin graft rechallenge in nonrejecting an

270 th anti-CD40L monoclonal antibody (mAb) plus donor-specific splenocyte transfusion (DST) induces allo

271 BALB/c donor-specific splenocyte transfusion and anti-CD40L mon

272 over the long term; they exhibited increased donor-specific suppressive functions; and their removal

273 Donor-specific T-cell migration was visualized by adopti

274 We next performed allogeneic IUHCTx into donor-specific T-cell receptor transgenic mice and confi

275 We observed progressive deletion of donor-specific T-lymphocytes, accounting at least in par

276 us to achieve mixed allogeneic chimerism and donor-specific tolerance (DST).

277 ccepted a heart allotransplant and displayed donor-specific tolerance also accepted skin grafts from

278 el nonmyeloablative approach that results in donor-specific tolerance and mixed allogeneic chimerism.

279 rt illustrate that established mechanisms of donor-specific tolerance are strained during potent immu

280 ed lymphocyte reaction and ELISPOT) revealed donor-specific tolerance before and after transplantatio

281 ion (IUHCTx) is a promising method to induce donor-specific tolerance but the mechanisms of antigen p

282 le for up to 2 years and was associated with donor-specific tolerance for renal transplantation.

283 These data demonstrated that donor-specific tolerance to all components of the VCA ca

284 amycin and IL-2/Fc fusion protein results in donor-specific tolerance to VCA, but not FTS allografts.

285 w) subpopulation, which are able to transfer donor-specific tolerance via IL-10 and TGF-beta1-depende

286 Donor-specific tolerance was assessed with mixed lymphoc

287 oal in transplantation is the achievement of donor-specific tolerance, minimizing the use of immunosu

288 emonstrated to effectively induce allogeneic donor-specific tolerance.

289 thout immunosuppression to assess for robust donor-specific tolerance.

290 stem cell transplantation (HSCT) can lead to donor-specific tolerance.

291 us abrogating transplantation tolerance, the donor-specific tolerant state re-emerges, allowing spont

292 we aimed at testing the ability to generate donor-specific Tr1 cell-enriched lymphocytes from patien

293 le of stem cell transplantation (SCT) versus donor-specific transfusion (DST) in tolerance induction

294 ine heart transplant recipients treated with donor-specific transfusion (DST) plus anti-CD154 monoclo

295 gan transplant, a clinical method defined as donor-specific transfusion (DST).

296 c effect in promotion of alloengraftment and donor-specific transplant tolerance, significantly decre

297 romotes the differentiation and expansion of donor-specific Tregs without secondary reprogramming to

298 etion of effector cells without expansion of donor-specific Tregs.

299 develop an adoptive therapy with tolerogenic donor-specific type 1 T regulatory cells for patients wi

300 The results showed donor-specific variations in dose dependent deformabilit