4.5 Review

Hematopoietic progenitor cell mobilization by granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and erythropoietin in the absence of matrix metalloproteinase-9

期刊

STEM CELLS AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 317-328

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/scd.2005.14.317

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of mobilized hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPC) has largely replaced the use of bone marrow HPC for autologous and allogeneic transplantation; however, the mechanisms of HPC mobilization remain unclear. A better understanding of these mechanisms, may allow the development of improved (potentially more rapid and/or higher yield) HPC mobilization strategies, especially for patients who mobilize poorly using current mobilization protocols. Clinically, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor ( G-CSF) is widely used to induce HPC mobilization, and evidence suggests that metalloproteinase enzymes released by activated granulocytes play an important role in the G-CSF-induced HPC mobilization. These enzymes may act to disrupt putative cell-cell and/or cell-extracellular matrix interactions within the hematopoietic microenvironment thereby releasing HPC into the blood. Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) appears to be important for G-CSF-induced mobilization. Using an MMP-9 knock-out (KO) mouse model, we investigated the role of MMP-9 in G-CSF and erythropoietin (EPO)-based HPC mobilization at clinically relevant cytokine doses. There were few hematologic or hematopoietic differences between the wild-type and MMP-9KO mice during steady-state hematopoiesis. When treated subcutaneously with EPO (500 U/kg per day) and G-CSF ( 15 mu g/ kg per day) for 5 days and assayed on day 6, similarly increased extramedullary hematopoiesis and numbers of HPC in the spleen and blood were observed for both the wild-type and MMP-9KO mice. These data demonstrate that MMP-9 is not required for EPO + G-CSF mobilization and that alternative mobilization mechanisms must be active at clinically relevant cytokine concentrations.

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

4.5
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