CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 342

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CDK6 Levels Regulate Quiescence Exit in Human Hematopoietic Stem Cells

Laurenti, Elisa, Frelin, Catherine, Xie, Stephanie, Ferrari, Robin, Dunant, Cyrille F., Zandi, Sasan, Neumann, Andrea, Plumb, Ian, Doulatov, Sergei, Chen, Jing, April, Craig, Fan, Jian-Bing, Iscove, Norman, Dick, John E.·2015·Cell Stem Cell
DOI 10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.017PMC PMC4359055
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.017

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Graphical abstract
Graphical abstract CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1 Human HSC Subsets in the Xenograft Divide with Distinct Frequencies and Display Distinct Transcriptional Profiles (A) Number of cells per mouse of indicated populations in the bone marrow of the mice at indicated time points post-transplantation of 70,000 Lin− CB (saturating number of LT-HSCs). Median and interquantile ranges are shown. ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. (B) The number of repopulating LT-HSCs per mouse at indicated time points post-transplantation were calculated by multiplying the number of phenotypic LT-HSCs shown in (A) by the frequency of long-term repopulating cells indicated in Table S1. (C) BrdU incorporation kinetics over 12 days of LT-HSC (black) and ST-HSC (red) enriched populations isolated from pools of two to five mice engrafted with 70,000 Lin− CB cells. BrdU was started either at 4 (left panel, expanding phase) or 20 weeks post-transplantation (right panel, equilibrium phase). n = 1–4 pools of three to five mice from six (4 weeks) or one (20 weeks) independent CB samples. Curve is least-squares fit. Left panel: R2 > 0.96; right panel: R2 > 0.98. Doubling times (half times of fit) in hours are shown in the insert. ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by extra-sum of squares test. (D and E) Derivation of a 241-gene signature distinguishing LT- and ST-HSCs in unperturbed CB over 20 weeks in a xenotransplant. (D) Examples of five expression profiles of genes with known HSC function over the course of 20 weeks of xenotransplant (black: LT-HSCs, red: ST-HSCs), mean ± S.E.M shown, n = 3 per time point. (E) Selected gene ontology terms significantly enriched in the 241-gene LT-HSC/ST-HSC core signature. Shown is the −log10 of the Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p value. See also Figure S1.
Figure 1 Human HSC Subsets in the Xenograft Divide with Distinct Frequencies and Display Distinct Transcriptional Profiles (A) Number of cells per mouse of indicated populations in the bone marrow of the mice at indicated time points post-transplantation of 70,000 Lin− CB (saturating number of LT-HSCs). Median and interquantile ranges are shown. ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test. (B) The number of repopulating LT-HSCs per mouse at indicated time points post-transplantation were calculated by multiplying the number of phenotypic LT-HSCs shown in (A) by the frequency of long-term repopulating cells indicated in Table S1. (C) BrdU incorporation kinetics over 12 days of LT-HSC (black) and ST-HSC (red) enriched populations isolated from pools of two to five mice engrafted with 70,000 Lin− CB cells. BrdU was started either at 4 (left panel, expanding phase) or 20 weeks post-transplantation (right panel, equilibrium phase). n = 1–4 pools of three to five mice from six (4 weeks) or one (20 weeks) independent CB samples. Curve is least-squares fit. Left panel: R2 > 0.96; right panel: R2 > 0.98. Doubling times (half times of fit) in hours are shown in the insert. ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by extra-sum of squares test. (D and E) Derivation of a 241-gene signature distinguishing LT- and ST-HSCs in unperturbed CB over 20 weeks in a xenotransplant. (D) Examples of five expression profiles of genes with known HSC function over the course of 20 weeks of xenotransplant (black: LT-HSCs, red: ST-HSCs), mean ± S.E.M shown, n = 3 per time point. (E) Selected gene ontology terms significantly enriched in the 241-gene LT-HSC/ST-HSC core signature. Shown is the −log10 of the Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p value. See also Figure S1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 LT- and ST-HSCs Are Equally Quiescent, but upon Mitogenic Stimulation They Differ in the Duration of Divisions Starting from G0 or G1 (A and B) Proportion of human CB HSC and progenitor cells in each phase of the cell cycle. Parameters were assessed by flow cytometry using Ki67 and Hoechst (Ki67− 2n DNA content, G0; Ki67+ 2n DNA content, G1; Ki67+ > 2n DNA content, S-G2-M). (A) Representative flow cytometry cell cycle profiles of CB LT- and ST-HSCs and the percentage of cells in each gate. Event count: LT-HSCs (top panel), 1,320 cells; ST-HSCs (bottom panel), 1,143 cells. (B) Mean ± SEM is shown; n = 3 CB samples. (C) Cell diameter of indicated populations measured with ImageJ from microscopy pictures. n > 323 cells from four independent CB samples. (D) Mitochondrial mass as measured by flow cytometry with MitoGreen. MFI, Mean Fluorescence Intensity; mean ± S.E.M shown, n = 2 independent CB samples. (E) PhosphoS6 protein levels as measured by flow cytometry. Left panels: representative flow cytometry plots; black line, LT-HSCs; red line, ST-HSCs. Right panel: median fluorescence intensity of phosphoS6 staining. Mean ± SEM is shown. n = 2 CB samples. (F) Percentage of cells positive for phosphoRB (S807/S811) as measured by flow cytometry; mean ± S.E.M shown, n = 2 independent CB samples. GMP, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors. (G) Cumulative first division kinetics (excluding dead cells) of LT-HSCs (black) and ST-HSCs (red) from a representative CB example. Curve is least-squares sigmoid fit. R2 > 0.99. Arrowheads represent time to first division as estimated from sigmoid fit (tFirstDiv = logEC50). Time 0 is the time of exposure to mitogenic stimulus. (H) Mean time to first division (in hours). (I) Mean time of cell cycle transit (tSecondDiv = logEC50 of sigmoid fit of cumulative second division kinetics; see Figure S2E). (J) Mean time of G0 exit (in hours) (tG0exit = tFirstDiv – tSecondDiv). In (H)–(J), individual CB samples are shown; gray lines connect LT-HSC and ST-HSC parameters from the same CB. ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by paired t test. See also Figure S2.
Figure 2 LT- and ST-HSCs Are Equally Quiescent, but upon Mitogenic Stimulation They Differ in the Duration of Divisions Starting from G0 or G1 (A and B) Proportion of human CB HSC and progenitor cells in each phase of the cell cycle. Parameters were assessed by flow cytometry using Ki67 and Hoechst (Ki67− 2n DNA content, G0; Ki67+ 2n DNA content, G1; Ki67+ > 2n DNA content, S-G2-M). (A) Representative flow cytometry cell cycle profiles of CB LT- and ST-HSCs and the percentage of cells in each gate. Event count: LT-HSCs (top panel), 1,320 cells; ST-HSCs (bottom panel), 1,143 cells. (B) Mean ± SEM is shown; n = 3 CB samples. (C) Cell diameter of indicated populations measured with ImageJ from microscopy pictures. n > 323 cells from four independent CB samples. (D) Mitochondrial mass as measured by flow cytometry with MitoGreen. MFI, Mean Fluorescence Intensity; mean ± S.E.M shown, n = 2 independent CB samples. (E) PhosphoS6 protein levels as measured by flow cytometry. Left panels: representative flow cytometry plots; black line, LT-HSCs; red line, ST-HSCs. Right panel: median fluorescence intensity of phosphoS6 staining. Mean ± SEM is shown. n = 2 CB samples. (F) Percentage of cells positive for phosphoRB (S807/S811) as measured by flow cytometry; mean ± S.E.M shown, n = 2 independent CB samples. GMP, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors. (G) Cumulative first division kinetics (excluding dead cells) of LT-HSCs (black) and ST-HSCs (red) from a representative CB example. Curve is least-squares sigmoid fit. R2 > 0.99. Arrowheads represent time to first division as estimated from sigmoid fit (tFirstDiv = logEC50). Time 0 is the time of exposure to mitogenic stimulus. (H) Mean time to first division (in hours). (I) Mean time of cell cycle transit (tSecondDiv = logEC50 of sigmoid fit of cumulative second division kinetics; see Figure S2E). (J) Mean time of G0 exit (in hours) (tG0exit = tFirstDiv – tSecondDiv). In (H)–(J), individual CB samples are shown; gray lines connect LT-HSC and ST-HSC parameters from the same CB. ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by paired t test. See also Figure S2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Distinct CDK6 Levels Govern the G0 Exit Kinetics of LT- and ST-HSCs (A) Log2 signal intensity for CDK6 mRNA probe. Shown are individual measures (black circles: LT-HSCs, red squares: ST-HSCs, green triangles: GMPs) and the median and interquantile ranges (horizontal bars); n = 3. All multiple comparisons have been tested. (B) Immunofluorescence for CDK6 protein in LT- and ST-HSCs sorted from CB (left panel) or cultured for 4 days (right panel). Representative pictures and histograms of CDK6 fluorescence density are normalized to the fluorescence density of the IgG control in the same population. Positivity threshold was set over the median + 1 SD of the IgG control distribution and the percetnage of positive cells is indicated. 100–570 cells are analyzed with n = 3 CB samples. Scale bar represents 10 μM. (C) Normalized median CDK6 fluorescence density. Mean ± SEM is shown; n = 3 CB samples. GMPs, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors. (D) Immunofluorescence for CyclinD3 protein in LT-HSCs, ST-HSCs, and GMPs from freshly isolated CB (Day 0, left panel) or after 4 days of culture (Day 4, right panel). Shown are histograms of CyclinD3 fluorescence density normalized to the fluorescence density of the IgG control in the same population. Positivity threshold (dotted line) was set over the median + 1 SD of the IgG control distribution. n = 135–315 cells analyzed for day 0 and n = 49–245 cells for day 4. (E) Normalized median CyclinD3 fluorescence density at the indicated time points. Mean ± SEM is shown; n = 3 CB samples. ∗∗p < 0.05 by paired t test. (F) Time course analysis of CDK6 and CyclinD3 upon stimulation by mitogenic signals. Percentages of CDK6+ (top panel) or CyclinD3+ (bottom panel) cells in each of the indicated populations at the indicated time points after isolation from CB are shown. Mean ± S.E.M shown. n = 3 CB samples, except for day 2, where n = 2 CB samples. ∗∗p < 0.05 by paired t test. See also Figure S3.
Figure 3 Distinct CDK6 Levels Govern the G0 Exit Kinetics of LT- and ST-HSCs (A) Log2 signal intensity for CDK6 mRNA probe. Shown are individual measures (black circles: LT-HSCs, red squares: ST-HSCs, green triangles: GMPs) and the median and interquantile ranges (horizontal bars); n = 3. All multiple comparisons have been tested. (B) Immunofluorescence for CDK6 protein in LT- and ST-HSCs sorted from CB (left panel) or cultured for 4 days (right panel). Representative pictures and histograms of CDK6 fluorescence density are normalized to the fluorescence density of the IgG control in the same population. Positivity threshold was set over the median + 1 SD of the IgG control distribution and the percetnage of positive cells is indicated. 100–570 cells are analyzed with n = 3 CB samples. Scale bar represents 10 μM. (C) Normalized median CDK6 fluorescence density. Mean ± SEM is shown; n = 3 CB samples. GMPs, granulocyte-monocyte progenitors. (D) Immunofluorescence for CyclinD3 protein in LT-HSCs, ST-HSCs, and GMPs from freshly isolated CB (Day 0, left panel) or after 4 days of culture (Day 4, right panel). Shown are histograms of CyclinD3 fluorescence density normalized to the fluorescence density of the IgG control in the same population. Positivity threshold (dotted line) was set over the median + 1 SD of the IgG control distribution. n = 135–315 cells analyzed for day 0 and n = 49–245 cells for day 4. (E) Normalized median CyclinD3 fluorescence density at the indicated time points. Mean ± SEM is shown; n = 3 CB samples. ∗∗p < 0.05 by paired t test. (F) Time course analysis of CDK6 and CyclinD3 upon stimulation by mitogenic signals. Percentages of CDK6+ (top panel) or CyclinD3+ (bottom panel) cells in each of the indicated populations at the indicated time points after isolation from CB are shown. Mean ± S.E.M shown. n = 3 CB samples, except for day 2, where n = 2 CB samples. ∗∗p < 0.05 by paired t test. See also Figure S3.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 CDK6 Levels Determine the Duration of Quiescence Exit in the HSC Pool (A–C) Cell division duration of single LT- and ST-HSCs after exposure to mitogenic signal in the presence or absence of PD033299 (50 nM). (A) Percentage of cells from the indicated populations that divided after 100 hr in culture. (B) Cumulative first division kinetics (excluding dead cells). Data from a representative CB example are shown. Curve is least-squares sigmoid fit. R2 > 0.99. (C) Mean time to first division (hours) (tfirstDiv = logEC50). (D–G) Cell division duration of single LT- and ST-HSCs after exposure to mitogenic signal with or without CDK6 EE. (D) Cumulative first division kinetics (excluding dead cells) of indicated populations transduced with indicated lentiviral vectors. Data from a representative CB are shown. Curve is least-squares sigmoid fit. R2 > 0.99. (E) Mean time to first division (hours) (tfirstDiv = logEC50). (F) Time of cell cycle transit of indicated populations in hours. (G) Expansion curves of LT- and ST-HSCs in culture. Shown is the average number of cells per single cell plated at the indicated time points after culture initiation. Data are from one representative experiment out of three. Time 0 represents the time of exposure to mitogenic stimulus. In (A), (C), (E), and (F), individual CB samples are shown; gray lines connect parameters from the same condition. ∗∗p < 0.05 by paired t test. See also Figure S4.
Figure 4 CDK6 Levels Determine the Duration of Quiescence Exit in the HSC Pool (A–C) Cell division duration of single LT- and ST-HSCs after exposure to mitogenic signal in the presence or absence of PD033299 (50 nM). (A) Percentage of cells from the indicated populations that divided after 100 hr in culture. (B) Cumulative first division kinetics (excluding dead cells). Data from a representative CB example are shown. Curve is least-squares sigmoid fit. R2 > 0.99. (C) Mean time to first division (hours) (tfirstDiv = logEC50). (D–G) Cell division duration of single LT- and ST-HSCs after exposure to mitogenic signal with or without CDK6 EE. (D) Cumulative first division kinetics (excluding dead cells) of indicated populations transduced with indicated lentiviral vectors. Data from a representative CB are shown. Curve is least-squares sigmoid fit. R2 > 0.99. (E) Mean time to first division (hours) (tfirstDiv = logEC50). (F) Time of cell cycle transit of indicated populations in hours. (G) Expansion curves of LT- and ST-HSCs in culture. Shown is the average number of cells per single cell plated at the indicated time points after culture initiation. Data are from one representative experiment out of three. Time 0 represents the time of exposure to mitogenic stimulus. In (A), (C), (E), and (F), individual CB samples are shown; gray lines connect parameters from the same condition. ∗∗p < 0.05 by paired t test. See also Figure S4.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 CDK6 EE LT-HSCs Outcompete Wild-Type HSCs without Exhaustion (A–D) NSG mice were injected with sorted Lin− CD34+ CD38− cells transduced with CDK6 EE or control (LUC) lentiviral vectors (GFP+ cells) and untransduced competitive cells (GFP−). Bone marrow was harvested at indicated time points post-transplantation and analyzed by flow cytometry. (A) Percentage of GFP+ cells among engrafted human hematopoietic cells (CD45+). Time 0 corresponds to percentage of GFP+ cells before injection in four independent CB samples. 4 weeks post-transplantation: n = 13 LUC and 14 CDK6 EE mice; 20 weeks post-transplantation: n = 25 LUC and 23 CDK6 EE mice. (B) Lymphoid to myeloid ratio (percentage of CD19+/CD33+) among GFP+ cells at 20 weeks post-transplantation. n = 25 LUC and 23 CDK6 EE mice. In (A) and (B), boxplots represent median, 25th, and 75th percentiles and whiskers represent min and max. Gray boxes, LUC; white boxes, CDK6 EE. (C) Percentage of GFP+ cells among LT-HSCs at 20 weeks post-transplantation. (D) Absolute number of LT-HSCs at 20 weeks post-transplantation. In (C) and (D), n = 6 mice from two CB samples. Individual mice, median, and interquantile range are shown. In (A)–(D), ∗p < 0.1, ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by Mann-Whitney test. (E and F) CDK6 EE LT-HSCs expand over serial transplantation. LUC, CDK6 EE (GFP+), or untransduced (GFP−) LT-HSCs were sorted from primary transplanted mice (n = 2 pools of three to five mice) and injected at four different doses into secondary NSG mice. (E) Engraftment levels (percentage of CD45+ cells) 12 weeks after secondary transplantation (>0.01% CD45+ GFP+ or CD45+ GFP−) at the two highest doses (200 and 400 cells/mouse). Individual mice, median, and interquantile range are shown. (F) Summary table of number of mice engrafted at each dose tested and estimation of LT-HSC frequencies in each group by the ELDA statistical method. See also Figure S5.
Figure 5 CDK6 EE LT-HSCs Outcompete Wild-Type HSCs without Exhaustion (A–D) NSG mice were injected with sorted Lin− CD34+ CD38− cells transduced with CDK6 EE or control (LUC) lentiviral vectors (GFP+ cells) and untransduced competitive cells (GFP−). Bone marrow was harvested at indicated time points post-transplantation and analyzed by flow cytometry. (A) Percentage of GFP+ cells among engrafted human hematopoietic cells (CD45+). Time 0 corresponds to percentage of GFP+ cells before injection in four independent CB samples. 4 weeks post-transplantation: n = 13 LUC and 14 CDK6 EE mice; 20 weeks post-transplantation: n = 25 LUC and 23 CDK6 EE mice. (B) Lymphoid to myeloid ratio (percentage of CD19+/CD33+) among GFP+ cells at 20 weeks post-transplantation. n = 25 LUC and 23 CDK6 EE mice. In (A) and (B), boxplots represent median, 25th, and 75th percentiles and whiskers represent min and max. Gray boxes, LUC; white boxes, CDK6 EE. (C) Percentage of GFP+ cells among LT-HSCs at 20 weeks post-transplantation. (D) Absolute number of LT-HSCs at 20 weeks post-transplantation. In (C) and (D), n = 6 mice from two CB samples. Individual mice, median, and interquantile range are shown. In (A)–(D), ∗p < 0.1, ∗∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.01 by Mann-Whitney test. (E and F) CDK6 EE LT-HSCs expand over serial transplantation. LUC, CDK6 EE (GFP+), or untransduced (GFP−) LT-HSCs were sorted from primary transplanted mice (n = 2 pools of three to five mice) and injected at four different doses into secondary NSG mice. (E) Engraftment levels (percentage of CD45+ cells) 12 weeks after secondary transplantation (>0.01% CD45+ GFP+ or CD45+ GFP−) at the two highest doses (200 and 400 cells/mouse). Individual mice, median, and interquantile range are shown. (F) Summary table of number of mice engrafted at each dose tested and estimation of LT-HSC frequencies in each group by the ELDA statistical method. See also Figure S5.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Simulation of the Impact of Delayed G0 Exit in LT-HSCs on the HSC Pool with an Agent-Based Model (A) Comparison between the three hypotheses tested by the modeling strategy. Earlier modeling strategies of homeostasis assumed that all HSCs started division upon receiving a mitogenic signal with one characteristic cycling time per HSC subtype (HYP. 1). Rather, we propose that G0 exit and cell cycle progression are differentially and independently regulated. This results in two characteristic cycling times per HSC subtype without (HYP. 2.1) or with (HYP. 2.2) a delay in G0 exit between LT- and ST-HSCs. Cycling times indicated are as measured in Figures 2G–2J. (B and C) Simulated number of LT-HSC divisions per year in the HSC pool at homeostasis (B) and after perturbation (C). (D) Effect of changing the LT-HSC G0 exit delay parameter on the number of LT-HSC divisions. Shown is the number of divisions in the LT-HSC pool per year when the delay of G0 exit of LT-HSCs (compared to ST-HSCs) is inputted at 0 (no delay), 2.9, 5.8 (experimental value), or 11.6 hr. (E) Perturbation model: 1% of the progenitor compartment was eliminated at the time indicated by an arrow to simulate injury. Number of progenitor cells (left panel), ST-HSCs (middle panel), and LT-HSCs (right panel) are displayed as a function of time. In (B)–(E), data represent the mean ± SD of 256 runs. The simulations were run with a noise parameter of 5% and an HSC pool exit rate of 24 cells per day. How parameters were chosen and results with different parameters are shown in Figure S6 and discussed in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures.
Figure 6 Simulation of the Impact of Delayed G0 Exit in LT-HSCs on the HSC Pool with an Agent-Based Model (A) Comparison between the three hypotheses tested by the modeling strategy. Earlier modeling strategies of homeostasis assumed that all HSCs started division upon receiving a mitogenic signal with one characteristic cycling time per HSC subtype (HYP. 1). Rather, we propose that G0 exit and cell cycle progression are differentially and independently regulated. This results in two characteristic cycling times per HSC subtype without (HYP. 2.1) or with (HYP. 2.2) a delay in G0 exit between LT- and ST-HSCs. Cycling times indicated are as measured in Figures 2G–2J. (B and C) Simulated number of LT-HSC divisions per year in the HSC pool at homeostasis (B) and after perturbation (C). (D) Effect of changing the LT-HSC G0 exit delay parameter on the number of LT-HSC divisions. Shown is the number of divisions in the LT-HSC pool per year when the delay of G0 exit of LT-HSCs (compared to ST-HSCs) is inputted at 0 (no delay), 2.9, 5.8 (experimental value), or 11.6 hr. (E) Perturbation model: 1% of the progenitor compartment was eliminated at the time indicated by an arrow to simulate injury. Number of progenitor cells (left panel), ST-HSCs (middle panel), and LT-HSCs (right panel) are displayed as a function of time. In (B)–(E), data represent the mean ± SD of 256 runs. The simulations were run with a noise parameter of 5% and an HSC pool exit rate of 24 cells per day. How parameters were chosen and results with different parameters are shown in Figure S6 and discussed in the Supplemental Experimental Procedures.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Aryee, 2009, An improved empirical bayes approach to estimating differential gene expression in microarray time-course data: BETR (Bayesian Estimation of Temporal Regulation), BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 409, 10.1186/1471-2105-10-409 · DOI
  2. Benveniste, 2010, Intermediate-term hematopoietic stem cells with extended but time-limited reconstitution potential, Cell Stem Cell, 6, 48, 10.1016/j.stem.2009.11.014 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bradford, 1997, Quiescence, cycling, and turnover in the primitive hematopoietic stem cell compartment, Exp. Hematol., 25, 445
  4. Copley, 2012, Hematopoietic stem cell heterogeneity takes center stage, Cell Stem Cell, 10, 690, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.05.006 · DOI
  5. Foudi, 2009, Analysis of histone 2B-GFP retention reveals slowly cycling hematopoietic stem cells, Nat. Biotechnol., 27, 84, 10.1038/nbt.1517 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Gazit, 2013, Transcriptome analysis identifies regulators of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells, Stem Cell Reports, 1, 266, 10.1016/j.stemcr.2013.07.004 · DOI
  7. Glauche, 2009, Stem cell proliferation and quiescence—two sides of the same coin, PLoS Comput. Biol., 5, e1000447, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000447 · DOI
  8. Hoffmann, 2008, Noise-driven stem cell and progenitor population dynamics, PLoS ONE, 3, e2922, 10.1371/journal.pone.0002922 · DOI
  9. Jankovic, 2007, Id1 restrains myeloid commitment, maintaining the self-renewal capacity of hematopoietic stem cells, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 1260, 10.1073/pnas.0607894104 · DOI
  10. Kataoka, 2011, Evi1 is essential for hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal, and its expression marks hematopoietic cells with long-term multilineage repopulating activity, J. Exp. Med., 208, 2403, 10.1084/jem.20110447 · DOI
  11. Lajtha, 1963, On the concept of cell cycle, J. Cell. Physiol., 62, L1
  12. Laurenti, 2008, Hematopoietic stem cell function and survival depend on c-Myc and N-Myc activity, Cell Stem Cell, 3, 611, 10.1016/j.stem.2008.09.005 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Laurenti, 2013, The transcriptional architecture of early human hematopoiesis identifies multilevel control of lymphoid commitment, Nat. Immunol., 14, 756, 10.1038/ni.2615 · DOI
  14. Lechman, 2012, Attenuation of miR-126 activity expands HSC in vivo without exhaustion, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 799, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.09.001 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Milyavsky, 2010, A distinctive DNA damage response in human hematopoietic stem cells reveals an apoptosis-independent role for p53 in self-renewal, Cell Stem Cell, 7, 186, 10.1016/j.stem.2010.05.016 · DOI
  16. Morrison, 1994, The long-term repopulating subset of hematopoietic stem cells is deterministic and isolatable by phenotype, Immunity, 1, 661, 10.1016/1074-7613(94)90037-X · DOI
  17. Notta, 2011, Isolation of single human hematopoietic stem cells capable of long-term multilineage engraftment, Science, 333, 218, 10.1126/science.1201219 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Oguro, 2013, SLAM family markers resolve functionally distinct subpopulations of hematopoietic stem cells and multipotent progenitors, Cell Stem Cell, 13, 102, 10.1016/j.stem.2013.05.014 · DOI
  19. Passegué, 2005, Global analysis of proliferation and cell cycle gene expression in the regulation of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell fates, J. Exp. Med., 202, 1599, 10.1084/jem.20050967 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Pietras, 2011, Cell cycle regulation in hematopoietic stem cells, J. Cell Biol., 195, 709, 10.1083/jcb.201102131 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Pietrzyk, 1985, Normal cycling patterns of hematopoietic stem cell subpopulations: an assay using long-term in vivo BrdU infusion, Blood, 66, 1460, 10.1182/blood.V66.6.1460.1460 · DOI
  22. Qiu, 2014, Divisional History and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Function during Homeostasis, Stem Cell Rep., 2, 473, 10.1016/j.stemcr.2014.01.016 · DOI
  23. Ren, 2004, Cyclin C/cdk3 promotes Rb-dependent G0 exit, Cell, 117, 239, 10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00300-9 · DOI
  24. Roeder, 2002, A novel dynamic model of hematopoietic stem cell organization based on the concept of within-tissue plasticity, Exp. Hematol., 30, 853, 10.1016/S0301-472X(02)00832-9 · DOI
  25. Rossi, 2012, Less is more: unveiling the functional core of hematopoietic stem cells through knockout mice, Cell Stem Cell, 11, 302, 10.1016/j.stem.2012.08.006 · DOI
  26. Scheicher, 2014, CDK6 as a key regulator of hematopoietic and leukemic stem cell activation, Blood, 125, 90, 10.1182/blood-2014-06-584417 · DOI
  27. Suda, 1983, Proliferative kinetics and differentiation of murine blast cell colonies in culture: evidence for variable G0 periods and constant doubling rates of early pluripotent hemopoietic progenitors, J. Cell. Physiol., 117, 308, 10.1002/jcp.1041170305 · DOI
  28. Takizawa, 2011, Dynamic variation in cycling of hematopoietic stem cells in steady state and inflammation, J. Exp. Med., 208, 273, 10.1084/jem.20101643 · DOI
  29. Uchida, 2003, Different in vivo repopulating activities of purified hematopoietic stem cells before and after being stimulated to divide in vitro with the same kinetics, Exp. Hematol., 31, 1338, 10.1016/j.exphem.2003.09.001 · DOI
  30. Veiga-Fernandes, 2004, High expression of active CDK6 in the cytoplasm of CD8 memory cells favors rapid division, Nat. Immunol., 5, 31, 10.1038/ni1015 · DOI
  31. Yuan, 2004, In vivo self-renewing divisions of haematopoietic stem cells are increased in the absence of the early G1-phase inhibitor, p18INK4C, Nat. Cell Biol., 6, 436, 10.1038/ncb1126 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Laurenti, E., Frelin, C., Xie, S., Ferrari, R., Dunant, C. F., Zandi, S., Neumann, A., Plumb, I., Doulatov, S., Chen, J., April, C., Fan, J.-B., Iscove, N., & Dick, J. E.
Venue
Cell Stem Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
302-313
ISSN
1934-5909
DOI
10.1016/j.stem.2015.01.017
PMC
PMC4359055
Cited by
342
References
9
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review