4.6 Review

The biology of hematopoietic stem cells and its clinical implications

期刊

FEBS JOURNAL
卷 289, 期 24, 页码 7740-7759

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/febs.16192

关键词

bone marrow niche; conditioning; hematopoietic stem cells; stem cell therapy; transplantation

资金

  1. National Science Center [2019/35/D/NZ3/04406, 2018/30/A/NZ3/00495, 2018/30/M/NZ5/00869]
  2. Foundation for Polish Science [POIR.04.04.00-00-5F16/18-00]
  3. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [0458/E-338/STYP/13/2018]
  4. Research Grant of DKMS Foundation
  5. Budgetary funds for science in 2020-2022 [0102/DIA/2020/49]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies on hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) have shown promising opportunities and challenges for their clinical applications. The heterogenic pool of HSCs dynamically changes with aging, involving complex interactions with the bone marrow niche. These findings may lead to overcoming current limitations in HSC transplantation and expanding the patient group that can benefit from the clinical potential of HSCs.
Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) give rise to all types of blood cells and self-renew their own population. The regeneration potential of HSCs has already been successfully translated into clinical applications. However, recent studies on the biology of HSCs may further extend their clinical use in future. The roles of HSCs in native hematopoiesis and in transplantation settings may differ. Furthermore, the heterogenic pool of HSCs dynamically changes during aging. These changes also involve the complex interactions of HSCs with the bone marrow niche. Here, we review the opportunities and challenges of these findings to improve the clinical use of HSCs. We describe new methods of HSCs mobilization and conditioning for the transplantation of HSCs. Finally, we highlight the research findings that may lead to overcoming the current limitations of HSC transplantation and broaden the patient group that can benefit from the clinical potential of HSCs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据