Marjorie Brand1,2, Edward Morrissey3. 1. Sprott Center for Stem Cell Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2. Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 3. Center for Computational Biology, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, Oxford, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In hematopoiesis, rapid cell fate decisions are necessary for timely responses to environmental stimuli resulting in the production of diverse types of blood cells. Early studies have led to a hierarchical, tree-like view of hematopoiesis with hematopoietic stem cells residing at the apex and serially branching out to give rise to bipotential progenitors with increasingly restricted lineage potential. Recent single-cell studies have challenged some aspects of the classical model of hematopoiesis. Here, we review the latest articles on cell fate decision in hematopoietic progenitors, highlighting single-cell studies that have questioned previously established concepts and those that have reaffirmed them. RECENT FINDINGS: The hierarchical organization of hematopoiesis and the importance of transcription factors have been largely validated at the single-cell level. In contrast, single-cell studies have shown that lineage commitment is progressive rather than switch-like as originally proposed. Furthermore, the reconstruction of cell fate paths suggested the existence of a gradient of hematopoietic progenitors that are in a continuum of changing fate probabilities rather than in a static bipotential state, leading us to reconsider the notion of bipotential progenitors. SUMMARY: Single-cell transcriptomic and proteomic studies have transformed our view of lineage commitment and offer a drastically different perspective on hematopoiesis.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In hematopoiesis, rapid cell fate decisions are necessary for timely responses to environmental stimuli resulting in the production of diverse types of blood cells. Early studies have led to a hierarchical, tree-like view of hematopoiesis with hematopoietic stem cells residing at the apex and serially branching out to give rise to bipotential progenitors with increasingly restricted lineage potential. Recent single-cell studies have challenged some aspects of the classical model of hematopoiesis. Here, we review the latest articles on cell fate decision in hematopoietic progenitors, highlighting single-cell studies that have questioned previously established concepts and those that have reaffirmed them. RECENT FINDINGS: The hierarchical organization of hematopoiesis and the importance of transcription factors have been largely validated at the single-cell level. In contrast, single-cell studies have shown that lineage commitment is progressive rather than switch-like as originally proposed. Furthermore, the reconstruction of cell fate paths suggested the existence of a gradient of hematopoietic progenitors that are in a continuum of changing fate probabilities rather than in a static bipotential state, leading us to reconsider the notion of bipotential progenitors. SUMMARY: Single-cell transcriptomic and proteomic studies have transformed our view of lineage commitment and offer a drastically different perspective on hematopoiesis.
Authors: Vionnie W C Yu; Rushdia Z Yusuf; Toshihiko Oki; Juwell Wu; Borja Saez; Xin Wang; Colleen Cook; Ninib Baryawno; Michael J Ziller; Eunjung Lee; Hongcang Gu; Alexander Meissner; Charles P Lin; Peter V Kharchenko; David T Scadden Journal: Cell Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Faiyaz Notta; Sasan Zandi; Naoya Takayama; Stephanie Dobson; Olga I Gan; Gavin Wilson; Kerstin B Kaufmann; Jessica McLeod; Elisa Laurenti; Cyrille F Dunant; John D McPherson; Lincoln D Stein; Yigal Dror; John E Dick Journal: Science Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Eirini Trompouki; Teresa V Bowman; Lee N Lawton; Zi Peng Fan; Dai-Chen Wu; Anthony DiBiase; Corey S Martin; Jennifer N Cech; Anna K Sessa; Jocelyn L Leblanc; Pulin Li; Ellen M Durand; Christian Mosimann; Garrett C Heffner; George Q Daley; Robert F Paulson; Richard A Young; Leonard I Zon Journal: Cell Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Nicola K Wilson; David G Kent; Florian Buettner; Mona Shehata; Iain C Macaulay; Fernando J Calero-Nieto; Manuel Sánchez Castillo; Caroline A Oedekoven; Evangelia Diamanti; Reiner Schulte; Chris P Ponting; Thierry Voet; Carlos Caldas; John Stingl; Anthony R Green; Fabian J Theis; Berthold Göttgens Journal: Cell Stem Cell Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 24.633
Authors: Caleb Weinreb; Samuel Wolock; Betsabeh K Tusi; Merav Socolovsky; Allon M Klein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Dorin-Mirel Popescu; Rachel A Botting; Emily Stephenson; Kile Green; Simone Webb; Laura Jardine; Emily F Calderbank; Krzysztof Polanski; Issac Goh; Mirjana Efremova; Meghan Acres; Daniel Maunder; Peter Vegh; Yorick Gitton; Jong-Eun Park; Roser Vento-Tormo; Zhichao Miao; David Dixon; Rachel Rowell; David McDonald; James Fletcher; Elizabeth Poyner; Gary Reynolds; Michael Mather; Corina Moldovan; Lira Mamanova; Frankie Greig; Matthew D Young; Kerstin B Meyer; Steven Lisgo; Jaume Bacardit; Andrew Fuller; Ben Millar; Barbara Innes; Susan Lindsay; Michael J T Stubbington; Monika S Kowalczyk; Bo Li; Orr Ashenberg; Marcin Tabaka; Danielle Dionne; Timothy L Tickle; Michal Slyper; Orit Rozenblatt-Rosen; Andrew Filby; Peter Carey; Alexandra-Chloé Villani; Anindita Roy; Aviv Regev; Alain Chédotal; Irene Roberts; Berthold Göttgens; Sam Behjati; Elisa Laurenti; Sarah A Teichmann; Muzlifah Haniffa Journal: Nature Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 69.504