4.7 Article

Ex vivo culture with human brain endothelial cells increases the SCID-repopulating capacity of adult human bone marrow

期刊

BLOOD
卷 100, 期 13, 页码 4433-4439

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1238

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA70970] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adult human bone marrow (ABM) is an important source of hematopoietic stem cells for transplantation in the treatment of malignant and nonmalignant diseases. However, in contrast to the recent progress that has been achieved with umbilical cord blood, methods to expand ABM stem cells for therapeutic applications have been disappointing. In this study, we describe a novel culture method that uses human brain endothelial cells (HUBECs) and that supports the quantitative expansion of the most primitive measurable cell within the adult bone marrow compartment, the nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficient. (NOD/SCID) repopulating cell (SRC). Coculture of human ABM CD34(+) cells with brain endothelial cells for 7 days supported a 5.4-fold increase in CD34(+) cells, induced more than 95% of the CD34(+)/CD38(-) subset to enter cell division, and produced progeny that engrafted NOD/SCID mice at significantly higher rates than fresh ABM CD34(+) cells. Using a limiting dilution analysis, we found the frequency of SRCs within fresh ABM CD34(+) cells to be 1 in 9.9 x 10(5) cells. Following HUBEC culture, the estimated frequency of SRCs increased to 1 in 2.4 x 10(5) cells. All mice that received transplants of HUBEC-cultured cells showed B-lymphoid and myeloid differentiation, indicating that a primitive hematopoietic cell was preserved during culture. Noncontact HUBEC cultures also maintained SRCs at a level comparable to contact HUBEC cultures, suggesting that cell-to-cell contact was not required. These data demonstrate that human brain endothelial cells possess a unique hematopoietic activity that increases the repopulating capacity of adult human bone marrow.

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

4.7
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