4.6 Article

Mesenchymal stromal cells from Shwachman-Diamond syndrome patients fail to recreate a bone marrow niche invivo and exhibit impaired angiogenesis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 182, 期 1, 页码 114-124

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.15388

关键词

Shwachman-Diamond syndrome; mesenchymal stromal cells; bone marrow niche; angiogenesis; childhood

资金

  1. 'Associazione Italiana Sindrome di Shwachman' (AISS)
  2. 'Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro' (AIRC)
  3. Fondazione Matilde Tettamanti
  4. Comitato Maria Letizia Verga
  5. Comitato Stefano Verri

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shwachman-Diamond syndrome (SDS) is a rare multi-organ recessive disease mainly characterised by pancreatic insufficiency, skeletal defects, short stature and bone marrow failure (BMF). As in many other BMF syndromes, SDS patients are predisposed to develop a number of haematopoietic malignancies, particularly myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukaemia. However, the mechanism of cancer predisposition in SDS patients is only partially understood. In light of the emerging role of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) in the regulation of bone marrow homeostasis, we assessed the ability of MSCs derived from SDS patients (SDS-MSCs) to recreate a functional bone marrow niche, taking advantage of a murine heterotopic MSC transplant model. We show that the ability of semi-cartilaginous pellets (SCPs) derived from SDS-MSCs to generate complete heterotopic ossicles invivo is severely impaired in comparison with HD-MSC-derived SCPs. Specifically, after invitro angiogenic stimuli, SDS-MSCs showed a defective ability to form correct networks, capillary tubes and vessels and displayed a marked decrease in VEGFA expression. Altogether, these findings unveil a novel mechanism of SDS-mediated haematopoietic dysfunction based on hampered ability of SDS-MSCs to support angiogenesis. Overall, MSCs could represent a new appealing therapeutic target to treat dysfunctional haematopoiesis in paediatric SDS patients.

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

4.6
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