MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Ectopic Expression of Mutated HOXB4 Proteins with Increased Intracellular Stability Affects Both Long and Short Term Hematopoietic Reconstitution.

2006· article· en· W2592733586 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Beauchemin, Gorazd Krosl, Nathalie Beslu, Jana Krošl, Guy Sauvageau, Denis‐Claude Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaematopoiesisTransplantationCancer researchBiologyProgenitor cellIn vivoEctopic expressionStem cellMolecular biologyCell cultureMedicineInternal medicineCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The capacity of recombinant Hoxb4 protein to induce ex vivo expansion of HSCs identifies this protein as a potential HSC expanding factor. However, its short extra- and intra-cellular half-life (3–4 hours and 40–60 minutes, respectively) are hampering clinical applications of Hoxb4. The analyses of Hoxb4 molecular structure lead us to generate amino acid substitutions: Leu7→Ala, Tyr23→Ala and Tyr28→Ala in the Hoxb4 protein in order to decrease its degradation. Indeed, these modifications increased the intracellular stability of Hoxb4 protein ~3-fold compared to wild type Hoxb4 (Hoxb4(WT)). The ability of mutated Hoxb4 protein to favor expansion of hematopoietic progenitors was first examined in cultures initiated with 10% Hoxb4(WT)-GFP, 10% mutated Hoxb4-YFP expressing cells and 80% non-transduced cells. After an 18-day culture, the proportion of Hoxb4(Leu7→Ala) and Hoxb4(Tyr23→Ala) cells increased to 50–60% in comparison to 30% for Hoxb4(WT) (p < 0.05), and no difference between the proliferation of Hoxb4(Tyr28→Ala) and Hoxb4(WT) cells could be identified. Western blot analyses showed that these Hoxb4(Leu7→Ala) and Hoxb4(Tyr23→Ala) cells expressed ~ 4-fold higher and Hoxb4(Tyr28→Ala) cells ~ 8-fold lower levels of Hoxb4 protein than Hoxb4(WT) cells. The long-term reconstituting ability of these constructs was then evaluated in vivo using competitive repopulation assays. At 8 weeks after transplantation, Hoxb4(Leu7→Ala) and Hoxb4(Tyr23→Ala) contributed to 11.5±2 and 13.1±1.8% of peripheral blood leukocytes (PBL) compared to 26.2± 4.3% determined for Hoxb4(WT), while after 16 weeks the progeny of Hoxb4(WT) cells generated the majority (≥65%) of the transplant-derived PBL in all recipients. Likewise, 16 weeks post transplantation Hoxb4 positive cells represented ≥80% of bone marrow, while cells expressing mutated Hoxb4 were present at ~10–12%level. Flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow, spleen and thymus revealed that mutated Hoxb4, like Hoxb4(WT) was expressed by all hematopoietic lineages, and that repopulation differences observed between mutated and WT Hoxb4 expressing cells were almost entirely attributable to myeloid lineage cells. However, short-term, non-competitive repopulation experiments showed that in the first 4 weeks post transplantation, mutated Hoxb4 expressing progenitors had a significantly greater contribution to the PBL recovery in comparison to Hoxb4(WT) (range 50–70% vs 16–30%, respectively; p < 0.05) for all three mutant proteins. Interestingly, this difference became less pronounced and non-significant after week 8 post transplantation. Together, these studies strongly suggest that different intracellular levels of Hoxb4 protein are affecting different types of hematopoietic progenitors. Early ex vivo expansion of clonogenic progenitors was achieved with mutated Hoxb4 proteins without impairing HSC long-term reconstituting ability. Thus, mutated Hoxb4 could represent a useful tool to accelerate engraftment after HSC transplantation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicImmunotherapy and Immune Responses→French-language works237,207→