Chimerism of the transplanted heart.
Chimerism of the transplanted heart.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1056/nejm200205023461815
复制
发表时间：
2002-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
G. Spangrude;B. Torok-Storb;M. Little
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Spangrude;B. Torok-Storb;M. Little
致编辑：Quaini 及其同事（1 月 3 日） 1 声称在移植的心脏中发现了宿主来源的干细胞。作者根据女性心脏的男性受者体内 Y 染色体的检测，鉴定了移植器官内的宿主来源细胞。为了确定这些细胞的干细胞性质，他们使用免疫组织化学研究来评估三种分子（c-kit、MDR1 和 Sca-1）的表达，这三种分子此前曾用于鉴定小鼠（Sca-1 和 c-kit）和人类（MDR1 和 c-kit）中的造血干细胞。 2-4 正如作者指出的，这三种分子都不是造血干细胞所独有的；目前，只有功能研究与多维流式细胞术分析相结合来评估至少四种抗原的存在或不存在，才能表明这些细胞的身份。 5 此外，在当前研究中使用 Sca-1 试剂特别麻烦，因为研究人员使用的抗体是针对小鼠细胞的特异性抗体，并且不与人骨髓细胞发生交叉反应（未发表的数据）。因此，作者无意中提供了非特异性抗体染色背景水平相当高的例子。这不仅否定了他们关于 Sca-1 细胞存在的结论，而且还对他们所有的免疫组织化学发现提出了质疑。奎尼等人。使用不适当的方法得出不适当的结论，从而给已经陷入争议的新兴研究领域增添了混乱。
To the Editor: Quaini and colleagues (Jan. 3 issue) 1 claim that stem cells of host origin are found in transplanted hearts. The authors identified host-derived cells within the transplanted organs on the basis of the detection of Y chromosomes in male recipients of female hearts. To establish the stem-cell nature of these cells, they used immunohistochemical studies to evaluate the expression of three molecules (c-kit, MDR1, and Sca-1) that have previously been used to identify hematopoietic stem cells in mice (Sca-1 and c-kit) and humans (MDR1 and c-kit). 2-4 As the authors indicate, none of these three molecules are unique to hematopoietic stem cells; at present, only functional studies in combination with multidimensional flow cytometric analysis to evaluate the presence or absence of at least four antigens can suggest the identity of these cells. 5 Furthermore, the use of the Sca-1 reagent in the current study is particularly troublesome, since the antibody used by the investigators is specific for mouse cells and is not cross-reactive with human bone marrow cells (unpublished data). Thus, the authors have inadvertently provided an example of rather high background levels of nonspecific antibody staining. This not only negates their conclusion that Sca-1 cells are present but also calls into question all their immunohistochemical findings. Quaini et al. have used inappropriate methods to reach an inappropriate conclusion and, in so doing, have added confusion to an emerging area of research already mired in controversy.