Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30722781›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroinflammation2019

Non-myeloablative busulfan chimeric mouse models are less pro-inflammatory than head-shielded irradiation for studying immune cell interactions in brain tumours.

A Saam Youshani, Samuel Rowlston, Claire O'Leary, Gabriella Forte, Helen Parker, Aiyin Liao, Brian Telfer, Kaye Williams, Ian D Kamaly-Asl, Brian W Bigger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroinflammation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Microglia and Microglia-Like Cells: Similar but Different.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2022
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Do haematopoietic stem cells age?Nature reviews. Immunology · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

A Saam YoushaniStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Samuel RowlstonStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Claire O'LearyStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Gabriella ForteStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Helen ParkerStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Aiyin LiaoStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Brian TelferDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Kaye WilliamsDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ian D Kamaly-AslDepartment of Neurosurgery, Royal Manchester Children's Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Brian W BiggerStem Cell and Neurotherapies Laboratory, Division of Cell Matrix Biology and Regenerative Medicine, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. brian.bigger@manchester.ac.uk.
University of Manchester · GBHenry Royce Institute · GBRoyal Manchester Children's Hospital · GB

Funding

Royal College of Surgeons of England Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChimeric mouse models generated via adoptive bone marrow transfer are the foundation for immune cell tracking in neuroinflammation. Chimeras that exhibit low chimerism levels, blood-brain barrier disruption and pro-inflammatory effects prior to the progression of the pathological phenotype, make it difficult to distinguish the role of immune cells in neuroinflammatory conditions. Head-shielded irradiation overcomes many of the issues described and replaces the recipient bone marrow system with donor haematopoietic cells expressing a reporter gene or different pan-leukocyte antigen, whilst leaving the blood-brain barrier intact. However, our previous work with full body irradiation suggests that this may generate a pro-inflammatory peripheral environment which could impact on the brain's immune microenvironment. Our aim was to compare non-myeloablative busulfan conditioning against head-shielded irradiation bone marrow chimeras prior to implantation of glioblastoma, a malignant brain tumour with a pro-inflammatory phenotype.

methodsRecipient wild-type/CD45.1 mice received non-myeloablative busulfan conditioning (25 mg/kg), full intensity head-shielded irradiation, full intensity busulfan conditioning (125 mg/kg) prior to transplant with whole bone marrow from CD45.2 donors and were compared against untransplanted controls. Half the mice from each group were orthotopically implanted with syngeneic GL-261 glioblastoma cells. We assessed peripheral blood, bone marrow and spleen chimerism, multi-organ pro-inflammatory cytokine profiles at 12 weeks and brain chimerism and immune cell infiltration by whole brain flow cytometry before and after implantation of glioblastoma at 12 and 14 weeks respectively.

resultsBoth non-myeloablative conditioning and head-shielded irradiation achieve equivalent blood and spleen chimerism of approximately 80%, although bone marrow engraftment is higher in the head-shielded irradiation group and highest in the fully conditioned group. Head-shielded irradiation stimulated pro-inflammatory cytokines in the blood and spleen but not in the brain, suggesting a systemic response to irradiation, whilst non-myeloablative conditioning showed no cytokine elevation. Non-myeloablative conditioning achieved higher donor chimerism in the brain after glioblastoma implantation than head-shielded irradiation with an altered immune cell profile.

conclusionOur data suggest that non-myeloablative conditioning generates a more homeostatic peripheral inflammatory environment than head-shielded irradiation to allow a more consistent evaluation of immune cells in glioblastoma and can be used to investigate the roles of peripheral immune cells and bone marrow-derived subsets in other neurological diseases.

Indexed as

ChimeraRadiation ChimeraAnimalsAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBone Marrow CellsBrain NeoplasmsBusulfanCell Line, TumorCytokinesFemaleGlioblastomaImmunity, CellularInflammationLeukocyte Common AntigensMiceMice, Inbred C57BLAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBusulfanCytokinesLeukocyte Common AntigensChimeric mouse modelGlioblastomaHead-shielded irradiationInflammationMacrophagesMicrogliaNon-myeloablative conditioning

Identifiers

PMID30722781
PMCPMC6362590
OpenAlexW2921240501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.