Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of human cord blood engraftment between immunocompromised mouse strains

Open access
McDermott, Sean P., Eppert, Kolja, Lechman, Eric R., Doedens, Monica, Dick, John E.·2010·Blood

Abstract

The nonobese diabetic/severe combined immune deficiency (NOD-scid) xenotransplantation model is the “gold standard” for assaying human hematopoietic stem cell activity. Systematic advancements, such as depletion of natural killer cell activity with anti-CD122 antibody, direct intrafemoral injection, and deletion or truncation of IL2Rγ, have improved human cell engraftment; however, questions remain whether these mouse models are equivalent or, if not, which model is superior for assaying hematopoietic stem cell activity. To address this, we compared overall engraftment and multilineage differentiation of near-limiting doses of lineage-depleted human umbilical cord blood cells by direct intrafemoral injection into NOD/Lt-scid, NOD/Shi-scid, NOD/Lt-scid/IL2Rγnull (NSG), and NOD/Shi-scid/IL2Rγnull mice. Transplantation into NSG mice generated moderately higher human engraftment levels in bone marrow compared with other strains. At limiting doses, NSG mice of both sexes were 3.6-fold more sensitive in detecting SCID-repopulating cells compared with NOD/Lt-scid mice. However, NSG females exhibited higher engraftment at limiting cell doses, resulting in an overall increase in SCID-repopulating cell detection of 9-fold. Both NSG and NOD/Shi-scid/IL2Rγnull support significantly improved engraftment in peripheral tissues compared with NOD/Lt-scid and NOD/Shi-scid mice, whereas NSG mice provide greater human engraftment in bone marrow than all other strains, especially at limiting doses.

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 · 10.1182/blood-2010-02-271841

Cites

Statistics

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

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

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
McDermott, S. P., Eppert, K., Lechman, E. R., Doedens, M., & Dick, J. E.
Venue
Blood
Published
2010-07-15
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
193-200
ISSN
  • 0006-4971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-0020
OpenAlex
W2033548186
Cited by
284
References
0
FWCI
15.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.