Differences between normal and cml stem cells: Potential targets for clinical exploitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a clonal myeloproliferative disorder in which there is a deregulated amplification of CML progenitors at intermediate stages of their differentiation along the myeloid, erythroid and megakaryocyte pathways. Such cell populations are routinely quantified using standard in vitro colony-forming cell (CFC) assays. The excessive production of leukemic CFC that is seen in most CML patients at diagnosis may be explained at least in part by their increased proliferative activity. An anomalous cycling behavior in vivo has also been found to extend to more primitive CML progenitor populations detectable as long-term culture-initiating cells (LTC-IC). Although the molecular basis of these changes in CML progenitor regulation is not fully understood at the level of the primitive CFC compartment, a selective inability of CML progenitors to be inhibited by certain -C-C-type chemokines has been demonstrated. Failure of the CML stem cell compartment to expand in vivo at the same rate as later progenitor cell types may be explained by their unique additional possession of an intrinsically upregulated probability of differentiation. Such a mechanism would be consistent with the observed loss of LTC-IC activity by CML cells incubated in vitro under conditions that sustain or expand normal LTC-IC populations. Initial clinical studies undertaken at our center established the feasibility of exploiting the differential behavior of primitive normal and CML cells in vitro as a potential purging strategy for reducing the leukemic stem cell content of CML marrow autografts. The results of a larger, second trial now in progress on a group of unselected patients are encouraging. Future studies of nonobese diabetic/severe-combined immunodeficiency mice engrafted with CML cells should provide another useful preclinical model for evaluating treatments that may more effectively eradicate the neoplastic clone in vivo.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".