These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of recombinant GM-CSF and recombinant G-CSF on colony formation of blast progenitors in acute myeloblastic leukemia.
    Author: Motoji T, Takanashi M, Fuchinoue M, Masuda M, Oshimi K, Mizoguchi H.
    Journal: Exp Hematol; 1989 Jan; 17(1):56-60. PubMed ID: 2783249.
    Abstract:
    The colony-promoting activities of recombinant granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rGM-CSF) and recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rG-CSF) on primary and secondary colony formation by blast progenitors (leukemic colony-forming units [L-CFU]) from 21 patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) were examined using blast colony assay and compared to colony promotion stimulated by phytohemagglutinin-stimulated leukocyte-conditioned medium (PHA-LCM). Recombinant GM-CSF stimulated blast colonies in 13 out of 20 cases examined (1 case not done). The magnitude of stimulation by rGM-CSF varied significantly according to the type of AML, but in general was lower than that of PHA-LCM. Blast cells of type M1 did not form any colonies with rGM-CSF, although numerous colonies were produced with PHA-LCM. Type M4 blasts formed fairly large numbers of colonies, though slightly less than those stimulated by PHA-LCM. Blasts of type M2 and M5 formed colonies with the stimulation of rGM-CSF, but the numbers were considerably smaller than type M4 and those stimulated with PHA-LCM. Recombinant G-CSF stimulated blast colonies in only 5 out of 21 cases, 3 of them being type M2. The number of cases responding to rG-CSF was significantly smaller than that responding to rGM-CSF, and even in cases in which colonies were formed, the magnitude of stimulation was minimal. From these results it seems likely that blast cells of different types of AML require a different kind of CSF for their optimal growth; type M4 blasts responded to the stimulation of rGM-CSF well, but blasts of other types of AML responded poorly. Thus, except for type M4, CSF(s) other than rGM-CSF seems to be required for the sufficient growth of L-CFU. Recombinant G-CSF is not likely to play an essential role in the proliferation of leukemic blasts of most types. Previous exposure to rGM-CSF and rG-CSF did not alter the self-renewal capacity, cellular phenotype, and morphology of colony cells, indicating that the direction and degree of differentiation of L-CFU stimulated by rGM-CSF or rG-CSF were not different from those stimulated with PHA-LCM.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]