ReviewOncogene2002
Genetic marking as an approach to studying in vivo hematopoiesis: progress in the non-human primate model.
Review in Oncogene, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing Complexity of Molecular Landscapes in Human Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells during Development and Aging.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- The stem cell revolution: on the role of CD164 as a human stem cell marker.NPJ Regenerative medicine · 2021Review
- Epigenetic Memory Underlies Cell-Autonomous Heterogeneous Behavior of Hematopoietic Stem Cells.Cell · 2017Article
- Dynamics of HSPC repopulation in nonhuman primates revealed by a decade-long clonal-tracking study.Cell stem cell · 2014Article
- Article
- AMD3100 mobilizes hematopoietic stem cells with long-term repopulating capacity in nonhuman primates.Blood · 2006Article
- Article
- Mesenchymal stem cell-based therapy: a new paradigm in regenerative medicine.Journal of cellular and molecular medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Retroviral insertion site analysis following transplantation of marked hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) is a powerful method for studying hematopoiesis in vivo. High-level gene transfer efficiency was achieved in murine models in the late 1980s, but early human gene transfer protocols into hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells using the murine methodology showed consistently poor results. The utility of non-human primates as pre-clinical models has since become apparent. Modifications in retroviral transduction conditions have resulted in stable long-term gene transfer efficiency as high as 15-20% to primitive repopulating cells in non-human primate models. This has permitted, for the first time in a large animal model, tracking of individual stem and progenitor cell clones via insertion site analysis, an advantage over competitive transplantation studies, which cannot firmly evaluate the number or life span of individual clones contributing to hematopoiesis. Retroviral tracking studies in mice suggest that stable hematopoiesis may be dominated by a small number of clones, but these studies have been limited by insensitive detection methods, low numbers of transplanted stem cells, and limited life span of immunodeficient mice. Autologous transplantation studies in non-human primates have just begun and have the potential to shed light on controversial issues such as the number of clones contributing to stable hematopoiesis, clonal succession, and lineage commitment, as well as the effect of clinically relevant manipulations such as cytokines, chemotherapy, and radiation on hematopoiesis. These approaches will have significant impact in studying various aspects of stem cell biology including the phenomenon of stem cell plasticity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.