4.7 Article

Engraftment of human hematopoietic stem cells is more efficient in female NOD/SCID/IL-2Rgc-null recipients

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 115, Issue 18, Pages 3704-3707

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-10-249326

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research
  2. Stem Cell Network of Canadian National Centres of Excellence
  3. Canadian Cancer Society
  4. Terry Fox Foundation
  5. Genome Canada through the Ontario Genomics Institute
  6. Ontario Institute for Cancer Research with funds from the province of Ontario
  7. Leukemia & Lymphoma Society
  8. Ontario Ministry of Health
  9. Canada Research Chair
  10. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Repopulation of immunodeficient mice remains the primary method to assay human hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Here we report that female NOD/SCID/IL-2Rg(c)-null mice are far superior in detecting human HSCs (Lin(-)CD34(+)CD38(-)CD90(+)CD45RA(-)) compared with male recipients. When multiple HSCs were transplanted, female recipients displayed a trend (1.4-fold) toward higher levels of human chimerism (female vs male: injected femur, 44.4 +/- 9.3 vs 32.2 +/- 6.2; n = 12 females, n = 24 males; P = .1). Strikingly, this effect was dramatically amplified at limiting cell doses where female recipients had an approximately 11-fold higher chimerism from single HSCs (female vs male: injected femur, 8.1 +/- 2.7 vs 0.7 +/- 0.7; n = 28 females, n = 20 males; P < .001). Secondary transplantations from primary recipients indicate that females more efficiently support the self-renewal of human HSCs. Therefore, sex-associated factors play a pivotal role in the survival, proliferation, and self-renewal of human HSCs in the xenograft model, and recipient sex must be carefully monitored in the future design of experiments requiring human HSC assays. (Blood. 2010; 115(18):3704-3707)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available