S Santangelo1, R L Gamelli, R Shankar. 1. Department of Surgery, Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois 60153, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate enhanced bone marrow monocytopoiesis in response to thermal injury and sepsis and to provide a mechanism for this observation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although monocyte activation and the resultant dysregulated cytokine production are now the accepted hallmarks of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, no information is available on the status of bone marrow monocyte production under injury conditions; neither has the balance between the two arms of myelopoiesis (monocytopoiesis and granulocytopoiesis) been delineated. METHODS: Peripheral blood absolute neutrophil and monocyte counts were determined 72 hours after the initial injury in sham, burn, and burn sepsis mice. Colony-forming potential in response to colony-stimulating factors (granulocyte, macrophage, and granulocyte/macrophage) was determined in both total nucleated and monocyte progenitor enriched bone marrow cells. Dual color flow cytometry was used to document the distribution pattern of monocyte progenitors. Macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor density in monocyte progenitors was assessed by 125I macrophage colony-stimulating factor binding assay. RESULTS: Burn sepsis induced circulating monocytosis and granulocytopenia. Colony-forming assays demonstrated an increase in the growth potential of monocyte progenitors and a significant decrease in granulocyte progenitors after burn and burn sepsis. Flow cytometric analysis of early (ER-MP12) and late (ER-MP20) monocyte progenitors showed an increase in monocyte lineage growth in burn sepsis. Radioligand binding assay demonstrated an increase in macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor expression in monocyte progenitors in burn sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The data validate the premise that enhanced monocytopoiesis in thermal injury and sepsis results from an imbalance in myelopoiesis that is driven by the increased expression of macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate enhanced bone marrow monocytopoiesis in response to thermal injury and sepsis and to provide a mechanism for this observation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although monocyte activation and the resultant dysregulated cytokine production are now the accepted hallmarks of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, no information is available on the status of bone marrow monocyte production under injury conditions; neither has the balance between the two arms of myelopoiesis (monocytopoiesis and granulocytopoiesis) been delineated. METHODS: Peripheral blood absolute neutrophil and monocyte counts were determined 72 hours after the initial injury in sham, burn, and burn sepsismice. Colony-forming potential in response to colony-stimulating factors (granulocyte, macrophage, and granulocyte/macrophage) was determined in both total nucleated and monocyte progenitor enriched bone marrow cells. Dual color flow cytometry was used to document the distribution pattern of monocyte progenitors. Macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor density in monocyte progenitors was assessed by 125I macrophage colony-stimulating factor binding assay. RESULTS: Burn sepsis induced circulating monocytosis and granulocytopenia. Colony-forming assays demonstrated an increase in the growth potential of monocyte progenitors and a significant decrease in granulocyte progenitors after burn and burn sepsis. Flow cytometric analysis of early (ER-MP12) and late (ER-MP20) monocyte progenitors showed an increase in monocyte lineage growth in burn sepsis. Radioligand binding assay demonstrated an increase in macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor expression in monocyte progenitors in burn sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: The data validate the premise that enhanced monocytopoiesis in thermal injury and sepsis results from an imbalance in myelopoiesis that is driven by the increased expression of macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor.
Authors: S M Opal; C J Fisher; J F Dhainaut; J L Vincent; R Brase; S F Lowry; J C Sadoff; G J Slotman; H Levy; R A Balk; M P Shelly; J P Pribble; J F LaBrecque; J Lookabaugh; H Donovan; H Dubin; R Baughman; J Norman; E DeMaria; K Matzel; E Abraham; M Seneff Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1997-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Joseph A Posluszny; Kuzhali Muthumalaiappan; Ameet R Kini; Andrea Szilagyi; Li-Ke He; Yanxia Li; Richard L Gamelli; Ravi Shankar Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-11
Authors: Kirstin Howell; Joseph Posluszny; Li K He; Andrea Szilagyi; John Halerz; Richard L Gamelli; Ravi Shankar; Kuzhali Muthu Journal: J Leukoc Biol Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 4.962
Authors: Kurt A Melstrom; Ryan Kozlowski; Daniel J Hassett; Hideki Suzuki; Donna M Bates; Richard L Gamelli; Ravi Shankar Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Sonia Rodriguez; Angelo Chora; Boyan Goumnerov; Christen Mumaw; W Scott Goebel; Luis Fernandez; Hasan Baydoun; Harm HogenEsch; David M Dombkowski; Carol A Karlewicz; Susan Rice; Laurence G Rahme; Nadia Carlesso Journal: Blood Date: 2009-08-20 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: David H Livingston; Devashish Anjaria; Jonathan Wu; Carl J Hauser; Victor Chang; Edwin A Deitch; Pranela Rameshwar Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 12.969