ReviewBlood reviews2023
Future prospects for the clinical transfusion of pig red blood cells.
Review in Blood reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The making of cells and organs in xenogeneic animal bioreactor.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
- Multiple genetic engineering of porcine red blood cells improves compatibility with human blood.iScience · 2026Article
- Brain-dead humans as preclinical reference models for xenotransfusion: bridging nonhuman primates and clinical applications throughFrontiers in physiology · 2026Article
- Hemolysis-induced hepatic ferroptosis following xenotransfusion of genetically modified pig red blood cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Targeted knock-in of human immune-regulatory genes into the porcine GGTA1 exon 4 reveals divergent expression on red blood cell membranes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Complement Activation and Hemolysis in Non-human Primates Following Transfusion of Genetically Modified Pig Red Blood Cells.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Is there a need for an alternative source of red blood cells for clinical transfusion and will gene-edited pigs fulfil that need?Vox sanguinis · 2025Article
- Investigation of the efficacy and safety of wild- type and triple-gene knockout pig RBC transfusions in nonhuman primates.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Initial investigation on the feasibility of porcine red blood cells from genetically modified pigs as an alternative to human red blood cells for transfusion.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- Rethinking preclinical models for genetically engineered porcine red blood cell xenotransfusion.Cell transplantationArticle
- ABO blood groups and galectins: Implications in transfusion medicine and innate immunity.Seminars in immunologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Transfusion of allogeneic human red blood cell (hRBCs) is limited by supply and compatibility between individual donors and recipients. In situations where the blood supply is constrained or when no compatible RBCs are available, patients suffer. As a result, alternatives to hRBCs that complement existing RBC transfusion strategies are needed. Pig RBCs (pRBCs) could provide an alternative because of their abundant supply, and functional similarities to hRBCs. The ability to genetically modify pigs to limit pRBC immunogenicity and augment expression of human 'protective' proteins has provided major boosts to this research and opens up new therapeutic avenues. Although deletion of expression of xenoantigens has been achieved in genetically-engineered pigs, novel genetic methods are needed to introduce human 'protective' transgenes into pRBCs at the high levels required to prevent hemolysis and extend RBC survival in vivo. This review addresses recent progress and examines future prospects for clinical xenogeneic pRBC transfusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.