4.6 Article

Uncoupling key determinants of hematopoietic stem cell engraftment through cell-specific and temporally controlled recipient conditioning

期刊

STEM CELL REPORTS
卷 16, 期 7, 页码 1705-1717

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.05.019

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Swedish Cancer Foundation
  3. Swedish Pediatric Cancer Foundation
  4. Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
  5. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [648894]
  6. HematoLinne program at Lund University
  7. StemTherapy program at Lund University
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [648894] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic deletion of Gata2 allows efficient conditioning of recipient HSCs for transplantation without irradiation, leading to robust engraftment of donor HSCs. Different modes and timings of recipient conditioning can influence the functional features of transplanted HSCs.
Hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) are typically characterized by transplantation into irradiated hosts in a highly perturbed microenvironment. Here, we show that selective and temporally controlled depletion of resident HSCs through genetic deletion of Gata2 constitutes efficient recipient conditioning for transplantation without irradiation. Strikingly, we achieved robust engraftment of donor HSCs even when delaying Gata2 deletion until 4 weeks after transplantation, allowing homing and early localization to occur in a completely nonperturbed environment. When HSCs from the congenic strains Ly5.1 and Ly5.2 were competitively transplanted, we found that the more proliferative state of Ly5.2 HSCs was associated with superior long-term engraftment when using conditioning by standard irradiation, while higher CXCR4 expression and a better homing ability of Ly5.1 HSCs strongly favored the outcome in our inducible HSC depletion model. Thus, the mode and timing of recipient conditioning challenges distinct functional features of transplanted 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