4.4 Article

Colony-Stimulating Factor-l-Responsive Macrophage Precursors Reside in the Amphibian (Xenopus laevis) Bone Marrow rather than the Hematopoietic Subcapsular Liver

期刊

JOURNAL OF INNATE IMMUNITY
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 531-542

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000346928

关键词

Amphibians; Colony-stimulating factor-1; Hematopoiesis; Macrophages; Monopoiesis; Myelopoiesis; Xenopus

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R24-AI-059830]
  2. National Science Foundation [IOB-074271]
  3. National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Macrophage precursors originate from and undergo lineage commitment within designated sites of hematopoiesis, such as the mammalian bone marrow. These cells subsequently differentiate in response to stimulation with macrophage colony-stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1). The amphibian bone marrow, unlike that of mammals, has been overlooked as a source of leukocyte precursors in favor of the liver subcapsular region, where hematopoiesis occurs in anurans. Here we report that the bone marrow rather than the liver periphery provides macrophage progenitors to the amphibian Xenopus laevis. We identified the amphibian CSF-1, examined its gene expression in developing and virally infected X. laevis and produced it in recombinant form (rX/CSF-1). This rX/CSF-1 did not bind or elicit proliferation/differentiation of subcapsular liver cells. Surprisingly, a subpopulation of bone marrow cells engaged this growth factor and formed rXICSF-1 concentration-dependent colonies in semisolid medium. Furthermore, rX/CSF-1-treated bone marrow (but not liver) cultures comprised of cells with characteristic macrophage morphology and high gene expression of the macrophage marker CSF-1 receptor. Together, our findings indicate that in contrast to all other vertebrates studied to date, committed Xenopus macrophage precursor populations are not present at the central site of hematopoiesis, but reside in the bone marrow. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据