Functional analysis of human hematopoietic repopulating cells mobilized with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor alone versus granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in combination with stem cell factor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using in vitro progenitor assays, serum-free in vitro cultures, and the nonobese diabetic/severe combined immune-deficient (NOD/SCID) ecotropic murine virus knockout xenotransplantation model to detect human SCID repopulating cells (SRCs) with multilineage reconstituting function, we have characterized and compared purified subpopulations harvested from the peripheral blood (PB) of patients receiving granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone or in combination with stem cell factor (SCF). Mobilized G-CSF plus SCF PB showed a 2-fold increase in total mononuclear cell content and a 5-fold increase in CD34-expressing cells depleted for lineage-marker expression (CD34(+)Lin(-)) as compared with patients treated with G-CSF alone. Functionally, G-CSF plus SCF-mobilized CD34(+)CD38(-)Lin(-) cells contained a 2-fold enhancement in progenitor frequency as compared with G-CSF-mobilized subsets. Despite enhanced cellularity and progenitor capacity, G-CSF plus SCF mobilization did not increase the frequency of SRCs as determined by limiting dilution analysis by means of unfractionated PB cells. Purification of SRCs from these sources demonstrated that as few as 1000 CD34(+)CD38(-)Lin(-) cells from G-CSF-mobilized PB contained SRC capacity while G-CSF plus SCF-mobilized CD34(+)CD38(-)Lin(-) cells failed to repopulate at doses up to 500 000 cells. In addition, primitive CD34(-)CD38(-)AC133(+)Lin(-) cells derived from G-CSF plus SCF-mobilized PB were capable of differentiation into CD34-expressing cells, while the identical subfractions from G-CSF PB were unable to produce CD34(+) cells in serum-free cultures. Our study defines qualitative and quantitative distinctions among subsets of primitive cells mobilized by means of G-CSF plus SCF versus G-CSF alone, and therefore has implications for the utility of purified repopulating cells from these sources.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".