Engraftment of human hematopoietic stem cells is more efficient in female NOD/SCID/IL-2Rgc-null recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repopulation of immunodeficient mice remains the primary method to assay human hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). Here we report that female NOD/SCID/IL-2Rg(c)-null mice are far superior in detecting human HSCs (Lin(-)CD34(+)CD38(-)CD90(+)CD45RA(-)) compared with male recipients. When multiple HSCs were transplanted, female recipients displayed a trend (1.4-fold) toward higher levels of human chimerism (female vs male: injected femur, 44.4 +/- 9.3 vs 32.2 +/- 6.2; n = 12 females, n = 24 males; P = .1). Strikingly, this effect was dramatically amplified at limiting cell doses where female recipients had an approximately 11-fold higher chimerism from single HSCs (female vs male: injected femur, 8.1 +/- 2.7 vs 0.7 +/- 0.7; n = 28 females, n = 20 males; P < .001). Secondary transplantations from primary recipients indicate that females more efficiently support the self-renewal of human HSCs. Therefore, sex-associated factors play a pivotal role in the survival, proliferation, and self-renewal of human HSCs in the xenograft model, and recipient sex must be carefully monitored in the future design of experiments requiring human HSC assays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".