OBJECTIVE: Faster engraftment of G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood (MPB) transplants compared to steady-state bone marrow (ssBM) is well documented and clinically relevant. A number of different factors likely contribute to this outcome. In the present study we explored whether independent of cell number there are intrinsic differences in the efficiency of progenitor cell homing to marrow between MPB and ssBM. METHODS: Mobilization was achieved by continuous infusion of G-CSF alone or in combination with other mobilizing agents. In vivo homing assays, in vitro migration assays, gene expression analysis, and flow cytometry were utilized to compare homing-related in vivo and in vitro properties of MPB and ssBM HPC. RESULTS: Marrow homing of murine MPB HPC, generated by different mobilizing schemes, was reproducibly significantly superior to that of ssBM, in lethally irradiated as well as in nonirradiated hosts. This phenotype was independent of MMP9, selectins, and beta2- and alpha4-integrins. Superior homing was also observed for human MPB HPC transplanted into NOD/SCIDbeta2microglobulin(-/-) recipients. Inhibition of HPC migration abrogated the homing advantage of MPB but did not affect homing of ssBM HPC, whereas enhancement of motility by CD26 inhibition improved marrow homing only of ssBM HPC. Enhanced SDF-1-dependent chemotaxis and low CD26 expression on MPB HPC were identified as potential contributing factors. Significant contributions of the putative alternative SDF-1 receptor, RDC1, were unlikely based on gene expression data. CONCLUSION: The data suggest increased motility as a converging endpoint of complex changes seen in MPB HPC which is likely responsible for their favorable homing.
OBJECTIVE: Faster engraftment of G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood (MPB) transplants compared to steady-state bone marrow (ssBM) is well documented and clinically relevant. A number of different factors likely contribute to this outcome. In the present study we explored whether independent of cell number there are intrinsic differences in the efficiency of progenitor cell homing to marrow between MPB and ssBM. METHODS: Mobilization was achieved by continuous infusion of G-CSF alone or in combination with other mobilizing agents. In vivo homing assays, in vitro migration assays, gene expression analysis, and flow cytometry were utilized to compare homing-related in vivo and in vitro properties of MPB and ssBM HPC. RESULTS: Marrow homing of murine MPB HPC, generated by different mobilizing schemes, was reproducibly significantly superior to that of ssBM, in lethally irradiated as well as in nonirradiated hosts. This phenotype was independent of MMP9, selectins, and beta2- and alpha4-integrins. Superior homing was also observed for human MPB HPC transplanted into NOD/SCIDbeta2microglobulin(-/-) recipients. Inhibition of HPC migration abrogated the homing advantage of MPB but did not affect homing of ssBM HPC, whereas enhancement of motility by CD26 inhibition improved marrow homing only of ssBM HPC. Enhanced SDF-1-dependent chemotaxis and low CD26 expression on MPB HPC were identified as potential contributing factors. Significant contributions of the putative alternative SDF-1 receptor, RDC1, were unlikely based on gene expression data. CONCLUSION: The data suggest increased motility as a converging endpoint of complex changes seen in MPB HPC which is likely responsible for their favorable homing.
Authors: N J Chao; J R Schriber; K Grimes; G D Long; R S Negrin; C M Raimondi; S J Horning; S L Brown; L Miller; K G Blume Journal: Blood Date: 1993-04-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Robert C Gentleman; Vincent J Carey; Douglas M Bates; Ben Bolstad; Marcel Dettling; Sandrine Dudoit; Byron Ellis; Laurent Gautier; Yongchao Ge; Jeff Gentry; Kurt Hornik; Torsten Hothorn; Wolfgang Huber; Stefano Iacus; Rafael Irizarry; Friedrich Leisch; Cheng Li; Martin Maechler; Anthony J Rossini; Gunther Sawitzki; Colin Smith; Gordon Smyth; Luke Tierney; Jean Y H Yang; Jianhua Zhang Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2004-09-15 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: N Schmitz; D C Linch; P Dreger; A H Goldstone; M A Boogaerts; A Ferrant; H M Demuynck; H Link; A Zander; A Barge Journal: Lancet Date: 1996-02-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Tricot; S Jagannath; D Vesole; J Nelson; S Tindle; L Miller; B Cheson; J Crowley; B Barlogie Journal: Blood Date: 1995-01-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: S Hahn; W Sireis; K Hourfar; D Karpova; K Dauber; V A J Kempf; E Seifried; M Schmidt; H Bönig Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: F M Rossi; A Zucchetto; E Tissino; M Dal Bo; R Bomben; C Caldana; F Pozzo; G Del Poeta; D Rossi; G Gaidano; V Gattei Journal: Leukemia Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: M Z Ratajczak; C H Kim; A Abdel-Latif; G Schneider; M Kucia; A J Morris; M J Laughlin; J Ratajczak Journal: Leukemia Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Darja Karpova; Julie K Ritchey; Matthew S Holt; Grazia Abou-Ezzi; Darlene Monlish; Lena Batoon; Susan Millard; Gabriele Spohn; Eliza Wiercinska; Ezhil Chendamarai; Wei Yang; Stephanie Christ; Leah Gehrs; Laura G Schuettpelz; Klaus Dembowsky; Allison R Pettit; Michael P Rettig; Halvard Bonig; John F DiPersio Journal: Blood Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 22.113