MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating the Replication Rate of Hematopoietic Stem Cells in Non-Human Primates: A Test of Hayflick’s Hypothesis.

2005· article· en· W2594811309 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan E. Shepherd, Hans‐Peter Kiem, Cynthia E. Dunbar, André Larochelle, Robert E. Donahue, Ruth Seggewiss, Peter M. Lansdorp, Peter Guttorp, Janis L. Abkowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomics
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaematopoiesisBiologyStem cellTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationHematopoietic stem cellImmunologyAndrologyGeneticsInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Because hematopoietic stem cells (HSC) cannot be directly observed, stochastic simulations in conjunction with competitive repopulation experiments have been used to estimate the replication rate of feline (1 rep per 8–10 wks) and murine (1 rep per 2.5 wks) HSC (model description and estimates in Nat Med2:190, 1996; Blood96:3399, 2001). These results could suggest that the HSC replication rate decreases with animal size and longevity, perhaps implying that the number of lifetime replications per HSC is limited and conserved in mammals. To test this, we analyzed retroviral vector gene marking and granulocyte telomere length data from baboons and rhesus macaques. Rhesus macaques are approximately the same size (weight 8 kg) as cats and have a similar lifespan (15–20 years); their hematopoietic demand, defined as the number of blood cells required per lifetime, is comparable. In contrast, baboons are larger (15 kg), live for 30 years, and have a hematopoietic demand more similar to humans. We simulated HSC dynamics for virtual baboons and macaques using specific HSC replication rates and then determined if observed data could be a random draw from 1000 simulated datasets. Compatibility of simulated and observed gene marking studies was determined by 3 formal criteria computed for both observed and simulated data: 1) the time after transplantation until the percent of marked cells stabilizes (measured using a change point model), 2) the presence or absence of drift after stabilization (drift is defined as a post-stabilization slope significantly different from 0 and estimated as at least 2% per 100 days), and 3) the amount of residual variation after stabilization (variation about a smoothed fit to the data -- transforming using the variance-stabilization transformation, arcsine of square root). Binomial probabilities were computed to evaluate Criterion 2 and Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness of fit tests were used for evaluating Criteria 1 and 3, with p-values < 0.05 defining incompatibility. Mice and cat HSC parameters did not yield simulated data compatible with the observed baboon data. Rather, the analyses required that baboon HSC replicated less frequently, approximately once per 27–77 weeks (with 300 transplanted HSC (the estimated number infused); the range was robust to other modeling assumptions). In contrast, cat HSC parameters yielded simulated data compatible with the observed macaque data if 100–500 HSC were transplanted, whereas mice HSC parameters trended towards incompatibility (incompatible for 100 and 500 transplanted HSC; nearly incompatible for 300 transplanted HSC, p=0.07). Next, granulocyte telomere length data were simulated (methods in Exp Hematol32:1040; 2004) and preliminary data yielded best estimates for the replication rate of HSC in macaques and baboons of once per 18 weeks and once per 24 weeks, respectively. Our results (derived from 2 independent experimental approaches) demonstrate that the replication rate of macaque HSC is slower than mouse, whereas the replication rate of baboon HSC is slower than both cat and mouse; argue that the rate of HSC replication inversely correlates with longevity; and support Hayflick’s hypothesis that cells can only undergo a relatively constant finite number of lifetime replications. This apparent evolutionary constraint may extend to human HSC behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicSingle-cell and spatial transcriptomicsFrench-language works237,207