ライフサイエンスコーパス: mixed lymphocyte

1 Mixed lymphocyte assays showed significantly lower T-cel

2 ding rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG) to mixed lymphocyte co-cultures between human leukocyte ant

3 In mixed lymphocyte co-cultures between normal human periph

4 recipient alloreactivity was not observed in mixed lymphocyte co-cultures when donor-derived cells we

5 onor-specific alloreactivity in simultaneous mixed lymphocyte co-cultures.

6 s were assayed for suppressor cell activity (mixed lymphocyte coculture assays), clonal deletion (T-c

7 In mixed-lymphocyte cocultures, allogeneic CDCs elicited ne

8 In vitro mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) and cell-mediated lymphol

9 we tested two of the regulators for in vitro mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) and cytotoxic T lymphocyt

10 myeloid cells, isolated from sex-mismatched mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) nonreactive siblings, hav

11 Cell-mediated lympholysis (CML) and mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) responses of peripheral b

12 nalloreactive T lymphocytes, by performing a mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC) stimulation of donor cell

13 Immunological responses were monitored by mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC), CML, skin graft rejectio

14 duction, as measured by in vitro analysis of mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC), T cell cytotoxicity, T h

15 Four groups of outbred, mixed lymphocyte culture (MLC)-reactive pigs underwent b

16 cific hyporesponsiveness was first observed (mixed lymphocyte culture [(MLR]) on Day 48.

17 splant recipients 2 years postoperatively in mixed lymphocyte culture and cell-mediated lympholysis r

18 poresponsiveness of residual CD8+ T cells in mixed lymphocyte culture and cytotoxic T lymphocyte to L

19 cyte responsiveness was measured by in vitro mixed lymphocyte culture and cytotoxic T lymphocyte.

20 hese compounds showed inhibitory activity in mixed lymphocyte culture assay.

21 demonstrated nonspecific suppression of the mixed lymphocyte culture assays at 90 and 200 days and a

22 Mixed lymphocyte culture assays demonstrated T cell tole

23 Mixed lymphocyte culture assays showed a trend toward a

24 ion inhibited donor-specific and third-party mixed lymphocyte culture proliferation in a dose-depende

25 kidney allografts that were incompatible in mixed lymphocyte culture reactions.

26 rvival was monitored daily from day 10, with mixed lymphocyte culture responses measured on day 14 or

27 Immunocompetence was assessed by one-way mixed lymphocyte culture using patients' peripheral bloo

28 absence of proliferation of CD4(+) T cells (mixed lymphocyte culture) and the description of an aber

29 Immunological hyporesponsiveness (by mixed lymphocyte culture) occurred more frequently in tr

30 were followed by inspection, serial biopsy, mixed lymphocyte culture, and alloantibody determination

31 responses to postnatal boosts) and in vitro (mixed lymphocyte culture, cytotoxicity, and cytokine rel

32 ning, using untreated bone marrow cells from mixed lymphocyte culture-nonreactive normal littermates.

33 Mixed lymphocyte culture-reactive, outbred pigs underwen

34 roliferation of allospecific CD8+ T cells in mixed lymphocyte culture.

35 BALB/c (H-2(d)) host spleen cells in a 5-day mixed lymphocyte culture.

36 , and in their ability to suppress a one-way mixed lymphocyte culture.

37 development of T cell hyporesponsiveness in mixed lymphocyte culture.

38 on to C57BL/6 splenocyte stimulator cells in mixed lymphocyte culture.

39 gglutinin, monoclonal antibodies to CD3, and mixed lymphocyte culture.

40 optive transfer assay and in vitro coculture mixed lymphocyte culture.

41 cine had no effect on IL-2 production in the mixed lymphocyte culture; therefore, the effect of glyci

42 Mixed lymphocytes cultured in the presence of two reagen

43 this stimulatory activity of DBMC, in vitro mixed lymphocyte cultures (MLC) and cell-mediated lympho

44 In addition, IFN-gamma production in mixed lymphocyte cultures (MLC) supplemented with IL-12

45 rum levels and decreased IL-12 production in mixed lymphocyte cultures (MLC).

46 on, we determined the role of IL-32 in human mixed lymphocyte cultures (MLCs) and GVHD.

47 bustness of mixed chimerism was tested using mixed lymphocyte cultures and skin grafts.

48 response upon donor antigen restimulation in mixed lymphocyte cultures ex vivo.

49 ion by human T-cell populations generated in mixed lymphocyte cultures or isolated from transplant ne

50 Alloreactive CTLs from M3-specific, mixed lymphocyte cultures responded strongly against the

51 Mixed lymphocyte cultures were supplemented with transfo

52 utatively tolerant animals was examined with mixed lymphocyte cultures, cell-mediated lympholysis ass

53 Mixed lymphocyte cultures, cytotoxic assays, and precurs

54 unophenotype profile, suppressive ability in mixed lymphocyte cultures, morphology, and ability to di

55 When we added QMAD to human mixed lymphocyte cultures, we observed dose-dependent in

56 IFN-gamma-producing responses in allogeneic mixed lymphocyte cultures.

57 the generation of cytolytic T lymphocytes in mixed lymphocyte cultures.

58 pairs based upon molecular tissue typing or mixed lymphocyte cultures.

59 bset (26-76%) of CD8+ CTL generated in human mixed lymphocyte cultures; cell sorting experiments conf

60 not generate cytotoxic responses in primary mixed-lymphocyte cultures against MHC-disparate (allogen

61 ion on liver cell immunogenicity in vitro in mixed lymphocyte hepatocyte culture (MLHC), in vitro in

62 In vitro, mixed lymphocyte-islet reaction experiments were perform

63 ocyte hepatocyte culture (MLHC), in vitro in mixed lymphocyte liver nonparenchymal cell culture (MLNP

64 n the draining lymph nodes was determined in mixed lymphocyte (MLR) proliferation assays.

65 ound in solution to gamma/delta T cells in a mixed lymphocyte preparation.

66 emonstrated by significant depression of the mixed lymphocyte reaction (690+/-119 vs. 3850+/-148 cpm,

67 specially in the ICLP (alpha>13) and two-way mixed lymphocyte reaction (alpha>40) assays.

68 y T cell activity was assessed by autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction (AMLR), an in vitro assay for

69 ic responder cells taking part in allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cell-mediated lympho

70 o antidonor responsiveness was determined by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cell-mediated lympho

71 c analysis and functionally as modulators in mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cell-mediated lympho

72 e was assessed by skin grafting, and also by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cell-mediated lympho

73 Regulatory mechanisms were assessed by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and cell-mediated lympho

74 ty was assessed by in vitro assays including mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and flow cytometry to de

75 cells stimulate naive T cells in the primary mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and induce MC38 tumor-sp

76 ravenous immunoglobulin [IVIG]) inhibits the mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and induces apoptosis pr

77 Mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) and skin grafting assess

78 phocytic reactivity and cytokine analysis of mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) culture supernatants by

79 flow cytometric cell sorting approach after mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) culture, we have found t

80 proliferation in dendritic cell-driven allo-mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) cultures by more than 90

81 shows that blockade of B7/CD28 in anergizing mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) cultures of peripheral b

82 rowth factor (TGF)-beta treatment of primary mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) cultures resulted in sec

83 inst cell surface determinants, treatment of mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) cultures with interleuki

84 micro-cell-mediated lympholysis (m-CML) and mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) in recipients with quies

85 h irradiated allogenic stimulator cells in a mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) in the presence of solub

86 rmined by standard skin grafting in vivo and mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) in vitro.

87 The demonstration that stimulation in the mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) mapped to the same regio

88 Thirty-nine cynomolgus monkeys received mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) mismatched unilateral lu

89 tors) in cell-mediated lympholysis (CML) and mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) responses of normal peri

90 DC activation and mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) studies were performed t

91 noantibodies of these isotypes and displayed mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) tolerance to donor pig m

92 ctivated cell sorting analysis of cells from mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) treated with MEDI-507 re

93 dard skin grafting, flow cytometry (FC), and mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) were used to assess effi

94 SPTs undergo less proliferation in a mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) when compared with unpul

95 , blocked binding of ICAM-1, and inhibited a mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR) with potency significant

96 nisms of tolerance, we examined in vitro the mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR), cell-mediated lymphocyt

97 APC function, assessed using an allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR), demonstrated equivalent

98 Histology, mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR), skin grafting, and flow

99 Using mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR), the effect of atorvasta

100 Proliferation and mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR)-based assays were used t

101 Our results show that primary mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR)-derived CTLs from granzy

102 CD8+ cells were tested for veto activity by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR)-induced cell-mediated ly

103 while having no effect on the CD4-dependent mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR).

104 +) and YFP(-)) was evaluated in an allogenic mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR).

105 ased CTLA-4 was functionally inhibitory in a mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR).

106 GTKO, GTKO/CD46 pigs and human was tested by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR).

107 , and IL-13 by T cells, in the course of the mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR).

108 ctor P3 (FOXP3) T-regulatory (Treg) cells in mixed lymphocyte reaction (Treg MLR) and now report addi

109 presenting cells able to induce the primary (mixed lymphocyte reaction [MLR]) and secondary (recall r

110 The autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction also indicated a trend towards

111 tudies, in addition to functional allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction and accessory-cell dependent m

112 Lewis anti-hamster mixed lymphocyte reaction and cell-mediated lympholysis

113 s determined by various parameters including mixed lymphocyte reaction and cytotoxic T lymphocyte ass

114 In vitro assays (mixed lymphocyte reaction and ELISPOT) revealed donor-sp

115 iferation and interferon-gamma production in mixed lymphocyte reaction and enzyme-linked immunospot a

116 d increased levels of IFN-gamma and IL-17 in mixed lymphocyte reaction and in the graft.

117 r allogeneic antigen stimulation in both the mixed lymphocyte reaction and in the skin explant assay.

118 Suppression was assayed in vitro by mixed lymphocyte reaction and in vivo by targeting cardi

119 with 381 also stimulated a higher autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction and induced a Th1-type respons

120 s showed enhanced functional activity in the mixed lymphocyte reaction and induced T cells to secrete

121 Donor-specific tolerance was assessed with mixed lymphocyte reaction and INF-gamma ELISPOT before (

122 alloreactivity in the host was confirmed by mixed lymphocyte reaction and skin grafting.

123 T lymphocyte lytic activity were assessed by mixed lymphocyte reaction assay and 51 Chromium release

124 e porcine hematopoietic donor as measured by mixed lymphocyte reaction assay and skin grafting.

125 Mixed lymphocyte reaction assay demonstrated tolerance t

126 -cell costimulatory activity, as measured by mixed lymphocyte reaction assay, was lower in patients,

127 Cs) to assess VEC proliferation or used in a mixed lymphocyte reaction assay.

128 oregulatory activity were assessed through a mixed lymphocyte reaction assay.

129 Mixed lymphocyte reaction assays in both groups revealed

130 a role of iNKT cells in regulating aGVHD, in mixed lymphocyte reaction assays, CD4(-) iNKT cells effe

131 ayed different allostimulation capability in mixed lymphocyte reaction assays.

132 ocytes from men and women as well as two-way mixed lymphocyte reaction assays.

133 nked immunospot, intracellular cytokine, and mixed lymphocyte reaction assays.

134 days after cessation of the treatment and by mixed lymphocyte reaction at 100 days.

135 ysis, electron microscopy, and an allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction at day 14.

136 48 hr, however, the T cells from the primary mixed lymphocyte reaction began producing IFN-gamma, con

137 HLA-G, TGF-beta, and IL-10) were tested on a mixed lymphocyte reaction between antigen-presenting cel

138 Induction of an in vivo autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction by caspase-modified self-Ags p

139 unoconjugate pretreated donors inhibited the mixed lymphocyte reaction completely without the use of

140 In vitro investigation of baboon anti-pig mixed lymphocyte reaction confirmed that only the indire

141 % CD4/RT1a, 9.28% CD8/RT1a) transplants, and mixed lymphocyte reaction confirmed tolerance in recipie

142 duction and proliferation were assessed in a mixed lymphocyte reaction containing FK734, human T cell

143 CD40:CD40L costimulatory pathway in primary mixed lymphocyte reaction cultures resulted in profound

144 ed and control animals were added to one-way mixed lymphocyte reaction cultures.

145 cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte generation in primary mixed lymphocyte reaction cultures.

146 Mixed lymphocyte reaction demonstrated in vitro donor-sp

147 In mixed lymphocyte reaction experiments designed to simula

148 orphology, flow cytometry for phenotype, and mixed lymphocyte reaction for allostimulatory function.

149 Mixed lymphocyte reaction for donor-specific tolerance i

150 nued insulin independence and donor-specific mixed lymphocyte reaction hyporeactivity.

151 y for at least 1 month, and then islets from mixed lymphocyte reaction mismatched primates were infus

152 n preventing T cell function using a one-way mixed lymphocyte reaction model for bone marrow transpla

153 d used either as stimulator cells in one-way mixed lymphocyte reaction or transplanted into naive Bal

154 te acute rejection had marked suppression of mixed lymphocyte reaction proliferation to intact donor

155 from the spleen of P5-primed rats had a high mixed lymphocyte reaction proliferative response to P5 p

156 ociated with a significant reduction in host mixed lymphocyte reaction reactivity and is correlated i

157 Analysis of selective mixed lymphocyte reaction responses to DR or DQ antigens

158 Anti-donor mixed lymphocyte reaction responses were positive in the

159 Cytotoxic antibodies, secondary mixed lymphocyte reaction responses, cytotoxic T cells,

160 Mixed lymphocyte reaction showed nonspecific suppression

161 Skin grafts and mixed lymphocyte reaction studies showed no durable tole

162 6 cells was induced by culture in allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction supernatant, an effect largely

163 Cytokine profile of mixed lymphocyte reaction supernatants of T cells obtain

164 Finally, we show that in an in vitro mixed lymphocyte reaction system using human T cells, th

165 ) demonstrated evidence of immune deviation; mixed lymphocyte reaction to ACI stimulator cells was vi

166 for more than 4 hr were able to inhibit the mixed lymphocyte reaction to almost background levels, b

167 The chimeric animal was less responsive by mixed lymphocyte reaction to pig-specific stimulators th

168 ory molecules both in vivo and in vitro, and mixed lymphocyte reaction using alloantigen-primed Mac-1

169 Donor-specific mixed lymphocyte reaction was generally preserved.

170 ever, evidence of sensitization in antidonor mixed lymphocyte reaction was observed in seven of eight

171 Previously, the mixed lymphocyte reaction was used as standard to detect

172 analysis of peripheral blood lymphocytes and mixed lymphocyte reaction were performed before transpla

173 ect alloresponse (cell-mediated lympholysis, mixed lymphocyte reaction).

174 otypes and clonality, cytokine production in mixed lymphocyte reaction, and characterization of intra

175 to stimulate naive T-cell proliferation in a mixed lymphocyte reaction, and increases the survival of

176 to mitogens and Ags, tolerance to donor in a mixed lymphocyte reaction, and normal Ab titers after te

177 profiling, cytokine assays, flow cytometry, mixed lymphocyte reaction, and T-cell proliferation assa

178 s controlling specific immune responses, the mixed lymphocyte reaction, and the structure of Ia antig

179 Cellular immune responses were monitored by mixed lymphocyte reaction, cytometric analysis of graft-

180 ed using fluorescence-activated cell sorter, mixed lymphocyte reaction, enzyme-linked immunospot, sig

181 fusion protein does not inhibit the one-way mixed lymphocyte reaction, immobilized RELT is capable o

182 owed donor-specific nonresponsiveness in the mixed lymphocyte reaction, lack of antidonor IgG antibod

183 fusion protein did not affect the allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction, our data indicate that TNFRSF

184 ed DC were capable of inducing an allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction, they did so to a significantl

185 ch combining a classical in vitro assay, the mixed lymphocyte reaction, with deep T cell receptor seq

186 he ability to suppress phytohemagglutinin or mixed lymphocyte reaction-induced splenocyte proliferati

187 A TR2-Fc fusion protein inhibited a mixed lymphocyte reaction-mediated proliferation suggest

188 nd bone were heterotopically transplanted to mixed lymphocyte reaction-mismatched Cynomolgus macaques

189 nsplantation from blood group compatible but mixed lymphocyte reaction-mismatched donors.

190 renal aortic segments were exchanged between mixed lymphocyte reaction-mismatched, blood group-compat

191 ction and T-cell proliferation in an in vivo mixed lymphocyte reaction.

192 al and can costimulate allogeneic cells in a mixed lymphocyte reaction.

193 c tolerance did not develop clinically or in mixed lymphocyte reaction.

194 by autologous non-T cells in the autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction.

195 nd proliferation capacity was measured using mixed lymphocyte reaction.

196 eaction and tolerance by skin grafts and the mixed lymphocyte reaction.

197 to be functionally active by inhibition of a mixed lymphocyte reaction.

198 ifically peptide-primed syngeneic T cells in mixed lymphocyte reaction.

199 ulated T-cell proliferation in an autologous mixed lymphocyte reaction.

200 r the known function of IL-16 to inhibit the mixed lymphocyte reaction.

201 to modulate the CD3 complex and inhibit the mixed lymphocyte reaction.

202 us, significantly reduced proliferation in a mixed lymphocyte reaction.

203 ific tolerance upon stimulation in a one-way mixed lymphocyte reaction.

204 ressive activity on cytokine production in a mixed lymphocyte reaction.

205 a triggering in T cells during an allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reaction.

206 their allogeneic potential, as indicated in mixed lymphocyte reaction.

207 aluated ex vivo by enzyme-linked immunospot, mixed lymphocytes reaction, cytotoxic T lymphocyte, and

208 to the CD31 domain 6 and inhibits the human mixed-lymphocyte reaction (MLR) in a specific and dose-d

209 mulated autologous and allogeneic T cells by mixed-lymphocyte reaction (MLR).

210 ro anti-donor responsiveness was assessed by mixed-lymphocyte reaction and cell-mediated lympholysis

211 type-1 T-cell response induced in allogeneic mixed-lymphocyte reaction.

212 ability to support T-cell proliferation in a mixed-lymphocyte reaction.

213 o stimulate allogeneic CD4(+) T cells in the mixed-lymphocyte reaction.

214 Furthermore, mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLR) against self antigens w

215 f BEL on human regulatory T cells (Tregs) in mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLR) alone and in combinatio

216 Mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLR) and cell-mediated lymph

217 Antagonistic antibody blocked mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLR) in a dose-dependent man

218 Mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLR) using peripheral blood

219 ester-labeled CD4+CD25 high FOXP3+ cells in mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLRs) ("the Treg MLR"), with

220 with more than 95% suppression of allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLRs) (29 of 30 donors).

221 cytokine production during donor-antipatient mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLRs) and acute graft-versus

222 tion with host PBMCs, as assessed in primary mixed lymphocyte reactions (MLRs).

223 ers to peripheral blood mononuclear cells in mixed lymphocyte reactions (P<0.001).

224 ne costimulatory blockade was tested in xeno-mixed lymphocyte reactions (XMLRs) and in natural killer

225 ontrol levels of proliferation in allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reactions and a type 1 (IFN-gamma) cyto

226 ia cells are highly effective stimulators in mixed lymphocyte reactions and can induce generation of

227 T lymphocytes could be detected on day 2 of mixed lymphocyte reactions and continued to increase in

228 atch induces the expression of granzyme B in mixed lymphocyte reactions and in a model of graft-versu

229 eDCs were functional in mixed lymphocyte reactions and produced tumor necrosis f

230 tely 16 weeks posttransplant for analysis of mixed lymphocyte reactions and spectratyping of human CD

231 Using mixed lymphocyte reactions as a model of alloimmunizatio

232 ng T cells in both autologous and allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reactions but less efficient at present

233 Stimulation of cells in mixed lymphocyte reactions by wild-type DCs was suppress

234 Mixed lymphocyte reactions demonstrated that CD4+CD25- T

235 Mixed lymphocyte reactions demonstrated that T-cells fro

236 In vitro mixed lymphocyte reactions revealed modulation of the re

237 Moreover, mixed lymphocyte reactions revealed that exposure of CD3

238 activity, skew T(H)1 responses in allogeneic mixed lymphocyte reactions through reduction of IL-4 and

239 mmunizing peptides, as well as having strong mixed lymphocyte reactions to donor cells prior to trans

240 Primary one-way mixed lymphocyte reactions were established, and the exp

241 Mixed lymphocyte reactions were performed combining enri

242 Mixed lymphocyte reactions were performed in naive gld,

243 Both pre- and postconversion sera inhibited mixed lymphocyte reactions, although only TAC sera suppr

244 tudies, including cell-mediated lympholysis, mixed lymphocyte reactions, and peptide proliferation as

245 Both agents effectively inhibited rhesus mixed lymphocyte reactions, but the combination was 100

246 In mixed lymphocyte reactions, EPO induced a dose-dependent

247 ferent T-cell receptor (Tcr) ligand systems: mixed lymphocyte reactions, stimulation of Tcr transgeni

248 These approaches include mixed lymphocyte reactions, trans-vivo delayed-type hype

249 y to induce a regulatory T-cell phenotype in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

250 s and naive recipient-matched stimulators in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

251 une regulatory) macrophages were measured in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

252 T DC for stimulating T-cell proliferation in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

253 Ab to CD28 and can mount an alloresponse in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

254 specifically nonresponsive to donor cells in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

255 lial/T cell reaction but not of conventional mixed lymphocyte reactions.

256 ent ability to suppress T-cell activation in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

257 5(+)/CD4(+)CD25(-) T cells were evaluated in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

258 ell proliferation and cytokine production in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

259 cells on the immune system was evaluated in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

260 tion, and T cell proliferation in autologous mixed lymphocyte reactions.

261 us postconversion sera on Treg generation in mixed lymphocyte reactions; (4) peripheral blood nonspec

262 Mixed-lymphocyte reactions and delayed-type hypersensiti

263 e short-lived and elicited potent allogeneic mixed-lymphocyte reactions typical of DCs.

264 In syngeneic mixed-lymphocyte reactions with BALB/c splenocytes, A20

265 lyzed for their ability to elicit allogeneic mixed-lymphocyte reactions.

266 In vitro tolerance was assessed using mixed lymphocyte reactivity (MLR) assays at the time the

267 This was accompanied by greatly reduced mixed lymphocyte reactivity and in vivo antigen priming

268 In vitro T-cell responses were evaluated by mixed lymphocyte reactivity assays.

269 ested in vitro for suppressor function using mixed lymphocyte reactivity assays.

270 Long-term survivors lost their mixed lymphocyte reactivity in a donor-specific manner,

271 Mixed lymphocyte reactivity is markedly reduced at this

272 for-mobilized T cells had similar phenotype, mixed lymphocyte reactivity, and Foxp3 gene expression l

273 Five ABO-compatible and mixed lymphocyte reactivity-mismatched streptozotocin-in

274 Using the mixed lymphocyte response (MLR) as a model cellular immu

275 class II MHC alpha chains inhibited the rat mixed lymphocyte response (MLR) in a dose-dependent mann

276 atment also depressed the secondary in vitro mixed lymphocyte response (MLR) of C57BL/6 splenocytes t

277 oth also were tested in a primary allogeneic mixed lymphocyte response (MLR) response.

278 The ID50 of CsA for the mixed lymphocyte response (MLR) was similar to PAEC (18.

279 In vitro proliferation, in a one-way mixed lymphocyte response (MLR), was measured after stim

280 onor-recipient pairs with high pretransplant mixed lymphocyte response and cytotoxic T lymphocyte pre

281 n four of four animals tested, and the 5-day mixed lymphocyte response stimulation index and relative

282 ignificantly more IFN-gamma in an allogeneic mixed lymphocyte response than MDC matured without this

283 y reduction of host proliferative responses (mixed lymphocyte response) and depression of anti-donor

284 xic T lymphocyte precursor (CTLp) frequency, mixed lymphocyte response, and antidonor IgG response.

285 ated by cell-mediated lymphocytotoxicity and mixed lymphocyte response, and subsequent donor-matched

286 T lymphocyte response by 79-100% but not the mixed lymphocyte response.

287 , while maintaining normal alloresponses, in mixed-lymphocyte-response assays performed after immunos

288 that bortezomib potently inhibited in vitro mixed lymphocyte responses and promoted the apoptosis of

289 In 9 of 12 evaluable animals, mixed lymphocyte responses demonstrated tolerance to don

290 + T cells independently of CD28 and enhances mixed lymphocyte responses to allogeneic antigens.

291 ponses, as reflected in augmented anti-mouse mixed lymphocyte responses, cell-mediated cytotoxicity,

292 titution, anti-alphaGal antibody levels, and mixed lymphocyte responses.

293 uorescein diacetate succinimidyl ester-based mixed lymphocyte responses.

294 L), delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH), and mixed-lymphocyte responses were evaluated in orally tole

295 und inhibition of allospecific CTL, DTH, and mixed-lymphocyte responses.

296 ent inhibition of allospecific CTL, DTH, and mixed-lymphocyte responses.

297 were divided into blood-group compatible and mixed-lymphocyte, stimulation-mismatched, donor-recipien

298 ALB/c mice, we generated CTLs in vitro using mixed lymphocyte tumor cultures.

299 imulate allogeneic T-cell proliferation in a mixed lymphocyte tumor reaction, and generate autologous

300 ood mononuclear cells of the same patient in mixed-lymphocyte tumor culture.