ライフサイエンスコーパス: mixed leukocyte

1 These fractions suppressed the mixed leukocyte, and may ameliorate graft-versus-host di

2 function in hematopoietic colony growth and mixed leukocyte culture (MLC) assays.

3 factor-treated donors were hyporesponsive in mixed leukocyte culture and in response to Con A, raisin

4 onsiveness to allogeneic stimulator cells in mixed leukocyte culture and was not mitogenic in vitro.

5 unction in one trichimeric dog, as tested by mixed leukocyte culture response and antibody response t

6 Nitrite also accumulated in mixed leukocyte culture supernatants as the result of co

7 effector populations generated in allogeneic mixed leukocyte cultures (MLC) and assayed for lytic act

8 ession, and relative levels of expression in mixed leukocyte cultures (MLC) is reported.

9 Graft survival was monitored throughout, and mixed leukocyte cultures (MLCs) (using peripheral blood

10 lyzed 14 days after grafting, using in vitro mixed leukocyte cultures (MLCs) incubated with irradiate

11 t assay), for the suppression of immunity in mixed leukocyte cultures (MLCs), for the induction of re

12 o recovered from the supernatants of primary mixed leukocyte cultures containing comparatively high c

13 to be the major source of IL-13 produced in mixed leukocyte cultures following 20-h activation with

14 ere capable of differentiating Th17 cells in mixed leukocyte cultures supplemented with IL-15 and sta

15 (CD127) expression with their stimulation in mixed leukocyte cultures with immature, allogeneic contr

16 allostimulatory activity assessed in primary mixed leukocyte cultures.

17 bilized blood was studied in uni-directional mixed leukocyte cultures.

18 endent leukocyte lines were established from mixed leukocyte cultures.

19 dition of anti-CD40L mAb at the start of the mixed leukocyte cultures.

20 , staphylococcal superantigen, or allogeneic mixed-leukocyte cultures.

21 that TR2-Ig partially inhibits an allogeneic mixed leukocyte proliferation response.

22 sence of NB cells was observed in allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction (33,508 +/- 1,613 cpm for contr

23 r capacity to stimulate a primary allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction (8-fold increase in stimulation

24 f the gene-transduced DCp was ascertained by mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) and CTL induction.

25 In contrast, CTLA-4BP inhibited human mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) and enhanced interleukin

26 and despite their in vitro alloreactivity in mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) assays did not cause acut

27 PCR HLA typing and mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) between recipient and don

28 We used spleen cells to stimulate the mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) in the presence of transf

29 to expand alloantigen-specific Tregs in the mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) that develops from polycl

30 had superior immunostimulatory capacity in a mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) when compared with DCs ex

31 We established mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR) with dendritic cells (DCs

32 scularized heart transplantation, allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR), and graft versus host di

33 Graft survival, mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR), and intragraft cytokine

34 develop potent stimulating activity for the mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR), and the DCs producing HI

35 itro evidence of donor-specific tolerance by mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR), cell-mediated lysis (CML

36 recipients as stimulator cells in a primary mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR).

37 n the blood, and antidonor reactivity in the mixed leukocyte reaction (MLR).

38 de of ex vivo psoriatic DCs in an allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction also showed a decrease in IL-17

39 que, and for anti-donor reactivity using the mixed leukocyte reaction and an ELISA screen for anti-HL

40 nged to 138, 428, and 509 days, and in vitro mixed leukocyte reaction and cell-mediated lympholysis (

41 e toward Gal SLA-matched PBMC were tested by mixed leukocyte reaction and cell-mediated lympholysis a

42 splenocytes and sera were also obtained for mixed leukocyte reaction and complement-mediated microcy

43 ostimulatory function of DCs was assessed by mixed leukocyte reaction and cytotoxic activity in vitro

44 Both mixed leukocyte reaction and cytotoxic T lymphocyte func

45 eart transplant) revealed minimal anti-donor mixed leukocyte reaction and cytotoxic T lymphocyte reac

46 vivo by skin transplantation and in vitro by mixed leukocyte reaction and enzyme-linked immunospot (E

47 T cells resulted in a >90% inhibition of the mixed leukocyte reaction and marked protection from leth

48 CRA efficiently inhibited allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction as well as antigen-specific act

49 ral compounds in a standard 2-way allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction assay, we identified a potent i

50 In parallel experiments, mixed leukocyte reaction assays were performed to invest

51 ocompatibility complex of the donor swine in mixed leukocyte reaction assays.

52 alloimmune responses in [ H]thymidine uptake mixed leukocyte reaction assays.

53 ein succinimidyl ester (CFSE) in 3- to 4-day mixed leukocyte reaction co-culture.

54 Mixed leukocyte reaction data indicated that combination

55 Mixed leukocyte reaction data were consistent with the f

56 antigen 4/B7 blockade resulting in secondary mixed leukocyte reaction hyporesponsiveness and toleranc

57 Ubiquitin dose-dependently inhibited mixed leukocyte reaction in C3H/HEJ splenocytes in vitro

58 In a mixed leukocyte reaction infliximab led to significantly

59 In a two-way mixed leukocyte reaction using a fully human anti-CD73,

60 nd allospecific CD154 TcM in 16-hr live-cell mixed leukocyte reaction using multiparametric flow cyto

61 Vigorous anti-donor reactivity in the mixed leukocyte reaction was present only in non-chimeri

62 and generation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes in mixed leukocyte reaction were determined by [3H]thymidin

63 ion with conditioned media from mixed cells (mixed leukocyte reaction) was 16.6 +/- 1.2%, which was h

64 nses to donor alloantigen were quantified by mixed leukocyte reaction, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CT

65 splenocytes and kidney samples for ELISPOT, mixed leukocyte reaction, and immunohistochemical studie

66 reactivity to donor stimulator cells in the mixed leukocyte reaction, and no detectable serum anti-H

67 d cell-mediated lympholysis responses in the mixed leukocyte reaction, but the fresh and 2-day cultur

68 endent DCs were more potent stimulators of a mixed leukocyte reaction, compared with control GTS cult

69 Antidonor mixed leukocyte reaction, cytotoxic T cell, and alloanti

70 ytometry, and their function was assessed by mixed leukocyte reaction, enzyme-linked immunoadsorbent

71 uman peripheral blood mononuclear cells in a mixed leukocyte reaction, HTSU-IgG inhibited proliferati

72 the presence of anti-donor reactivity in the mixed leukocyte reaction, suggesting that neither chimer

73 dney transplantations were performed between mixed leukocyte reaction-mismatched, ABO blood group-mat

74 expressing the mature phase marker CD83, and mixed leukocyte reaction-stimulatory function were lower

75 ase in DC-mediated T cell proliferation in a mixed leukocyte reaction.

76 ed proliferative responses of donor cells in mixed leukocyte reaction.

77 eta (V beta) repertoire as they occur in the mixed leukocyte reaction.

78 emory T-helper or T-cytotoxic cells in 16-hr mixed leukocyte reaction.

79 -cell stimulatory potential in an allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction.

80 T-cell proliferation and differentiation in mixed leukocyte reaction.

81 ultured them as stimulators in an allogeneic mixed leukocyte reaction.

82 y suppress T cell proliferative responses by mixed leukocyte reaction.

83 proinflammatory cytokines, was determined in mixed leukocyte reaction.

84 ed to be strong stimulators for T cells in a mixed leukocyte reaction.

85 by proliferation and cytokine secretion in a mixed leukocyte reaction.

86 reated monocytes are better stimulators in a mixed leukocyte reaction.

87 FN)-gamma production, and stimulation of the mixed leukocyte reaction.

88 y, and the ability to stimulate T cells in a mixed leukocyte reaction.

89 cell proliferation to host alloantigens in a mixed-leukocyte reaction does not predict freedom from G

90 nd tested in vitro for suppression of canine mixed leukocyte reactions (MLR).

91 occupancy was correlated with inhibition of mixed leukocyte reactions and clinical validation was ob

92 hibited MHC class I- and class II-restricted mixed leukocyte reactions between the parental strains b

93 were better stimulators than control DCs in mixed leukocyte reactions in vitro.

94 Cell binding and mixed leukocyte reactions indicated no significant diffe

95 and functional assays of one-way allogeneic mixed leukocyte reactions indicated that rAAV-transduced

96 Addition of RDP1258 to rat and human mixed leukocyte reactions inhibited proliferation in a d

97 of DCs to stimulate T-cell proliferation in mixed leukocyte reactions was very low.

98 CD1c(+) DCs and CD1c(+) DC-primed T cells on mixed leukocyte reactions were examined.

99 Mixed leukocyte reactions were performed to assess DC al

100 Mixed leukocyte reactions were used to determine the inf

101 Secondary mixed leukocyte reactions were used to test for T-cell h

102 Mixed leukocyte reactions with allo-endothelial cell-pri

103 Functional maturation of mdDC was tested in mixed leukocyte reactions, and the synthesis of proinfla

104 r CD14(low) and stimulated potent autologous mixed leukocyte reactions, consistent with differentiati

105 ated both anti-H-2(k) and anti-H-2(d) CTL in mixed leukocyte reactions, providing evidence that the g

106 allogeneic CD4 T cells as responder cells in mixed leukocyte reactions, we find that B cells preferen

107 The presence of CTLA4-Ig in mixed leukocyte reactions-while dampening the global pro

108 most potent stimulatory cells in allogeneic mixed leukocyte reactions.

109 e monoclonal antibodies (mAb) were tested in mixed leukocyte reactions.

110 al blood T cells and naive CD4(+) T cells in mixed leukocyte reactions.

111 D4 T cell response than the H2-O(+/+) DCs in mixed leukocyte reactions.

112 derwent three or more divisions from primary mixed leukocyte reactions.

113 hancing their immunostimulatory functions in mixed leukocyte reactions.

114 T helper (Th) 1 (mainly) and Th2 cells in 3d-mixed leukocyte reactions.

115 tometric analysis, respectively, after 3-day mixed leukocyte reactions.

116 ing function of DC was determined in one-way mixed leukocyte reactions.

117 ation and cytotoxic T lymphocytes in primary mixed leukocyte reactions.

118 ndritic cells in vitro as well as allogeneic mixed leukocyte reactivity in a dose-dependent manner.

119 ow cytometric analysis and their function by mixed leukocyte reactivity.

120 ecules was investigated both in vitro in the mixed leukocyte response (MLR) and in vivo in the vascul

121 surface HLA-DR, and induced less allogeneic mixed leukocyte response (MLR).

122 decreased T-cell stimulatory capacity in the mixed leukocyte response (P<0.01 vs. control).

123 c recipient more strongly inhibited the same mixed leukocyte response reactions autologously than a l

124 responses was then assessed in an allogeneic mixed leukocyte response.

125 ow (recipient-derived donor cells) inhibited mixed leukocyte responses of the recipient to the donor