4.8 Article

Proliferation dynamics of acute myeloid leukaemia and haematopoietic progenitors competing for bone marrow space

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-02376-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. ICL Department of Life Sciences Flow cytometry facility
  2. CRUK [C36195/A1183]
  3. ERC [337066]
  4. BBSRC [BB/I004033/1]
  5. Science Foundation Ireland [12IP1263]
  6. Wellcome Trust [105398/Z/14/Z]
  7. FCT/GABBA [SFRH/BD/52195/2013]
  8. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/L023776/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Cancer Research UK [11831] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. BBSRC [BB/L023776/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  11. Wellcome Trust [105398/Z/14/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  12. European Research Council (ERC) [337066] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Leukaemia progressively invades bone marrow (BM), outcompeting healthy haematopoiesis by mechanisms that are not fully understood. Combining cell number measurements with a short-timescale dual pulse labelling method, we simultaneously determine the proliferation dynamics of primitive haematopoietic compartments and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). We observe an unchanging proportion of AML cells entering S phase per hour throughout disease progression, with substantial BM egress at high levels of infiltration. For healthy haematopoiesis, we find haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) make a significant contribution to cell production, but we phenotypically identify a quiescent subpopulation with enhanced engraftment ability. During AML progression, we observe that multipotent progenitors maintain a constant proportion entering S phase per hour, despite a dramatic decrease in the overall population size. Primitive populations are lost from BM with kinetics that are consistent with ousting irrespective of cell cycle state, with the exception of the quiescent HSC subpopulation, which is more resistant to elimination.

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

4.8
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