Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:11167753rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1518999lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11167753lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0300926lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11167753lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1979963lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11167753lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0040808lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11167753lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2003903lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:issue4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:dateCreated2001-2-22lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:abstractTextThe type of regimen used might result in mobilization of phenotypically and functionally different CD34(+) cells. We compared the phenotype of CD34(+) cells in leukapheresis products of three homogeneous groups: I, healthy individuals treated with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) alone (n = 13); II, patients mobilized with G-CSF following chemotherapy (n = 16); and III, patients mobilized with G-CSF after high-dose chemotherapeutic pretreatment (n = 24). Multiparameter flow cytometry was performed for CD34(+) subpopulation analysis and focused on adhesion molecules, differentiation markers and megakaryocytic markers relevant for stem cell homing, with special reference to the importance of L-selectin expression. Regimens I and II led to higher numbers of mobilized CD34(+) cells (mean 468 x 10(6) and 491 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells per leukapheresis procedure respectively) than regimen III (mean 41 x 10(6) CD34(+) cells per leukapheresis procedure). Both the expression of L-selectin and CD54 on CD34(+) cells was significantly lower in group III, as was the percentage of megakaryocytic (CD41(+)) progenitors. A higher percentage of primitive (CD38(-) and/or HLA(-)DR(-)) CD34(+) cells was found in group III, correlating with a higher clonogenicity of the CD34(+) cells. However, when comparing the CD34(+)_ subpopulations that were also positive for L-selectin, there was no significant difference between the three regimens. A similar approach for the megakaryocytic CD34+ population resulted in an even worse quality of regimen III: 5.1% of CD34(+) being CD41(+)/L-selectin(+) compared with 9.2% and 8.9% in regimens I and II respectively. We concluded that the phenotypes of the CD34(+) cells in the G-CSF (group I) and G-CSF-chemotherapy (group II) regimens are similar, whereas the phenotype of the CD34(+) cells mobilized in the high-dose regimen (group III) displayed features that might negatively influence homing of the cells. Future studies will be directed towards regimens that will lead to the mobilization of a higher amount of CD34(+) cells with a phenotypically favourable phenotype.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:monthDeclld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:issn0007-1048lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HuijgensP CPClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:de BoerFFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PinedoH MHMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KesslerFFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SchuurhuisG...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:van der...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DrägerA MAMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Van...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:volume111lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:pagination1138-44lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:dateRevised2011-11-17lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11167753...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:year2000lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:articleTitleThe phenotypic profile of CD34-positive peripheral blood stem cells in different mobilization regimens.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Hospital Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11167753pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed