4.6 Article

Biophysical differences between chronic myelogenous leukemic quiescent and proliferating stem/progenitor cells

Journal

NANOMEDICINE-NANOTECHNOLOGY BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 8, Pages 2429-2437

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nano.2016.06.016

Keywords

Chronic myeloid leukemia; Atomic force microscopy; Cell mechanics; Personalized medicine; Single cell analysis

Funding

  1. The Enid A Haupt Charitable Trust
  2. MeadRock Foundation
  3. Albert C. Bostwick Foundation
  4. The E./S. Sindina Lymphoma Research Fund
  5. National Institutes of Health/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant at MSKCC [P30 CA008748]
  6. NSF [CMMI 1435655]
  7. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  8. Directorate For Engineering [1435655] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a clonal myeloproliferative disorder has improved recently, but most patients have not yet been cured. Some patients develop resistance to the available tyrosine kinase treatments. Persistence of residual quiescent CML stem cells (LSCs) that later resume proliferation is another common cause of recurrence or relapse of CML. Eradication of quiescent LSCs is a promising approach to prevent recurrence of CML. Here we report on new biophysical differences between quiescent and proliferating CD34+ LSCs, and speculate how this information could be of use to eradicate quiescent LSCs. Using AFM measurements on cells collected from four untreated CML patients, substantial differences are observed between quiescent and proliferating cells in the elastic modulus, pericellular brush length and its grafting density at the single cell level. The higher pericellular brush densities of quiescent LSCs are common for all samples. The significance of these observations is discussed. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available