Talk:Hematopoietic stem cell

On naming

Believe the word "hemopoetic" in this article is wrong. The National Institutes of Health calls it "Hematopoietic stem cell". Also, aren't they multipotent? See definition: Stem cell

"Hemopoietic" isn't in the article. Maybe you came from a redirect. If you're referring to the hemo vs hemato, they both mean the same thing. The definitions of pluripotent/multipotent found online and in books doesn't always match the defs found in stem cells. See [1] for example --jag123 10:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm more used to seeing hematopoietic versus hemopoietic, too. The terms are synonymous; I'll add a note to that effect.

Hematopoietic is used about 10 times more frequently than hemopoietic in the scientific literature.

Differentiation and classification

My textbook in histology does not agree with the CFU classifications in this article. In this article there are 4 major CFUs, and CFU-GM gives rise to all three granulocytes and the monocyte. In my textbook ("Color Textbook of Histology", 2nd ed. Gartner/Hiatt), CFU-GM gives rise only to the neutrophil and the monocyte. The basophil and eosinophil both have their own CFUs (CFU-Basophil and CFG-Eosinophil). Furthermore there are only two CFUs that are directly below the PHSC in the lineage, and those are CFU-S (S for 'spleen') and CFU-Ly (Ly for 'lymphocyte'). The CFUs for the granulocytes, monocytes, erythrocytes and megakaryocytes are all descentants of CFU-S. Does anyone know what the general concensus is on the definitions of the CFUs?

I found very little hits for CFU-Basophil, CFU-Eosinophil, CFU-Spleen or CFU-Ly on Google or Pubmed. My reference, Bloom & Fawcett's Concise histology is more recent than yours (by a year). I haven't found anything that suggests eosinophils or basophils develop seperately from neutrophils. Everything I see groups them as granulocytes, with a common lineage. Do you have anything recent that supports your textbooks? --jag123 18:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Check out the following link: http://reach.ucf.edu/~OncEduc1/PDF/sec8.pdf Scroll down until you get to the figure of the blood cell lineage. The figure shows the eosinophil having its own CFU, namely CFU-Eo. The basophil also has its own CFU, but it is not named in the figure. CFU-GM is shown in the figure, and gives rise only to the neutrophil and the monocyte.

Also check out this link: http://gsbs.gs.uth.tmc.edu/courses/GS040133_Corey_01-31-05.pdf (scroll down a bit). A similar figure is shown here. Due note that the two tables actually differ in their placement of the mast cell. Disturbing.

I'm pretty sure it's a well established fact that the monocyte and neutrophil share a common bipotential stem cell, and that it is called CFU-GM. Do you have any other web-based sources to support the classifications in your textbook? If so, I'd like to present them to my histology professor to see what he has to say about the matter. Also, remember that the term 'granulocytes' is just a grouping of neutrophils, basophils and eosinophils based on their appearance under the microscope. Functionally a neutrophil has more in common with a monocyte (as they are both phagocytes), and it would thus not be surprising if they share more of the same features when it comes to differentiation.

Physical characteristics

When the physical characteristics section describes more differentiated cells as having darker nuclei, I presume that's when they are stained...? If someone wants to add a link to H&E staining, that might be a good idea. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 4 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Actually the nuclei are darker even unstained in a phase contrast microscope AFAIK.Peter Znamenskiy 19:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"ial"

I believe the title of this article should be 'pluripotent hematopoietic stem cell' (or just 'hematopoietic stem cell'). Either way, I don't believe the word 'pluripotential' is fitting (being a noun).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beelaj (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 July 2006.

I agree completely. As far as I am aware, only multipotency of HSCs has so far been illustrated, and "stem cell" implies multipotency any way. Hematopoietic stem cell is what the title should read. --Peter Z.^Talk 12:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The title of this article needs to be changed. Preferably, it should just say "Hematopoietic Stem Cell". Alternatively, the "pluripotential" could be replaced by "multipotential".

Most evidence to date indicates that Hematopoietic Stem Cells are not pluripotential i.e. they make all types of blood cells, but (as far as we know) they only make blood cells and not other cells. They should be referred to as multipotent, but not as pluripotent.

Let me second the request that "pluripotential" be removed. HSC are not pluripotent, though they've been referred to as such in the past. But given current usage, the proper term is multipotential. And as a previous user stated, "stem cell" implies multipotency anyway. Akela1 00:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Hematopoietic stem cell is the best title! Martious 11:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs major restructuring and updating

If HSC is the name then this needs major expansion and updation. The blasts are actually quite irrelevant as they are mostly lineage committed progenitors and NOT stem cells, not even multipotent progenitors. I have added a little bit on LT HSC, ST HSC and MPPs in the marker section. But if HSC is the article it needs to be majorly restructured. I plan to add the following sections:

• HSC as a paradigm of higherchial stem cells with sequentially increasing commitment and decreasing recycling potential.
• Comparison of HSC with other stem cells (Eg Mesenchymal stem cels which donot have sucha rigid higherchy).
• Controversy about plasticity of HSCs and their potential for pluripotency.
• Stem cell niche for HSCs
  • Osteoblastic niche
  • Endothelial niche
• components of HSC niche:
  • Stroma:
  • Juxtacrine and paracrine interaction
• HSC mobilization
• HSC harvesting, purification and characterization
• HSC transplantation
• HSC homing
• HSC culture and ex vivo expansion
• HSC quantitation methods in mice and humans
  • limit dilution and competetive repopulation assays
• HSCs and cancer stem cells
• Aging of HSCs

--Dr.saptarshi 10:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with Dr. Saptarshi. This is a very important topic to basic science, medicine, and stem cell politics in general. The current article is quite inadequate and biased towards rather obscure models of hematopoiesis, that are not supported by the majority of investigators. I tried to remove some of this bias (likely self-reference) but it has reemerged. I second that this article needs to be completely reworked. The outline above is quite good. Antibody2000 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The outline looks useful. Any chance either of the above users could make suitable edits? Both being MUCH more knowledgeable about the relevant issues than myself! yoyo (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I updated the section about quiescence to include how cell cycle regulation helps prevent stem cell exhaustion over time. I hope this addresses the topic of HSC aging some. Stem cell theory of aging and adult stem cell#growth might also be good for further reading. Kschach2, 21:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Hematopoietic stem cell kinetics

I have moved this section from Symbolic dynamics (where it was clearly out of place) to this article. There is almost certainly redundancy involved, the only things I've changed were capitalization of the name, the links (eliminated the link to this article, added link to symbolic dynamics) and a placement of the comma in the reference. If this article is not the best place for the material enclosed, please, find a more suitable target and move it there. Thanks, Arcfrk (talk) 10:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

HSC expansion

Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Antagonists Promote the Expansion of Human Hematopoietic Stem Cells looks relevant. Rod57 (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Essay like

Some of the terminology and way this article is presented does tend to make it feel very much like an essay. I'm flagging it in the hope that someone with more time can have look through and rephrase some of the article. I'm more than willing to have a good go through it but don't have the time at present.Kavanagh21 (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WHERE IS OLD CHART?

The other chart is gone and should probably be recovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.218.85.222 (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Plasticity

Stem cell plasticity is a highly controversial area and, iPS cells notwithstanding, is viewed by the scientific community with extreme skepticism. Because there has been a great deal of research in this area with HSCs (especially HSCs derived from umbilical cord blood), it might be appropriate to include it as a carefully written sub-section. As a scientist in the field, I am kind of torn as to how to describe it. My gut instinct would be to describe it as "teaching the controversy" because, in my (admittedly anecdotal) experience no one of merit takes plasticity seriously anymore. However, as mentioned previously, it has been extensively studied and there does occasionally/rarely (depending on which normative wiggle-words you want to use) seem to be something to it, so an actual controversy does exist. It is more like the "Was there a feudalism?" question in history, where the more established will generally assert that "yes, there was a feudalism" and "no, there is no plasticity" whereas less established members are more likely (though a majority still agrees with the establishment) to support an alternative explanation.

TL;DR: Tread carefully with plasticity. The controversial nature of plasticity means that if any mention of it is to occur in the HSC article, it should be confined to its own section. Furthermore, given the heterodox nature of plasticity, contributors particularly keen on the concept should be viewed with a higher degree of skepticism.

The Bhatia group

While the Bhatia group has contributed to the field, the current edit of the page feels like it was written by an overzealous member (see: plasticity). While much remains to be discovered, a description of HSCs that overstated the models proposed by labs such as those headed by Weissman, Scadden, Lapidot or Lemischka would be incomplete, albeit acceptable for wiki purposes. The Bhatia group (no offense) is simply not in that same league. Ideally, wiki would present a minimum of consensus information for a lay audience, though low-barriers of access coupled with large egos and lack of field-specific knowledge amongst the moderators (an assumption, sorry if I've overstepped my position) makes such an ideal unlikely. So, instead it makes sense to try and stab the reader's eyeballs out with comprehensive information. The current page meets neither of those ideal criteria and further disservices lay readers by presenting a position so far outside of the mainstream it confuses more than it informs while pimping individual research articles..

Though niche (pardon the pun) subjects like this are more likely influenced by a very small number of editors and therefore receive less traffic, that is all the more reason for wiki moderators to be especially vigilant.

I went ahead and changed it. The information from the deleted paragraph really belongs in an article about plasticity, not HSCs -- and especially not in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.203.112 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Blood review series

doi:10.1182/blood-2014-12-570200 is the opening article of a series of five reviews on HSCs. Likely to be useful. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Article is difficult and may be too technical for most interested readers

As a general reader with no knowledge of hematology, I found even some of the lede sentences rather too dense to absorb without re-reading.

For example,

They give rise to the myeloid (monocytes and macrophages, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, erythrocytes, megakaryocytes/platelets, dendritic cells), and lymphoid lineages (T-cells, B-cells, NK-cells).

which could instead read as follows:

They give rise to both the myeloid and lymphoid lineages of blood cells. (Myeloid cells include monocytes, macrophages, neutrophils, basophils, eosinophils, erythrocytes, dendritic cells, and megakaryocytes or platelets. Lymphoid cells include T cells, B cells, and natural killer cells.)

Also, most of the wikilinks in the sentence I quoted need redirection, from a plural to a singular form, or from a shorter to a longer form, as in my suggested revision. Therefore, I'm fixing them, BEing BOLD.

yoyo (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

History and context

The article failed to teach me anything useful about the history of the science it covers, except for the unsubstantiated claim that X's group did so-and-so in 1988. Was this early or late? And who - which researchers - have been active in the field? Which are the main institutions involved? And what kind of support have they received from government, industry and philanthropy? Science doesn't happen in a vacuum! A undated reference to "the past two decades" or mentioning the last half-century still leaves these things very vague.

Perhaps a brief timeline, in bulleted list form, of the major advances in the science would help clarify the events and significant workers in the field.

yoyo (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Consistent inconsistency

I've made a few changes so that it's always hematopoietic stem cell (following this page name) and haematopoiesis (following that page name).

It's all faintly ridiculous, but seems to be the working consensus. — MaxEnt 00:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

On page title primacy with a proposed page rename

Edit: see also my previous talk entry.

For the record, this page (hematopoietic stem cell) was created on 10 December 2004.

Haematopoiesis was created on 25 February 2002.

Much later, we also gained haematopoietic system.

I find modern journal citations from prestigious journals using haematopoietic stem cell.

Unless there's a specific policy about each page being an island unto itself, it really would make things less insane to rename this page as haematopoietic stem cell, which it quite possibly would have been back in 2004 had the person who created this page originally taken full account of existing precedent.

Those were early days and maybe this principle didn't exist yet, but it does now. The ugly compromise that now seems to be in play is extremely difficult to maintain, and as it erodes, only accelerates further erosion due to the amplification effect of mimetic culture.

Shall we push this rock back up hill forevermore? I'd personally rather not. — MaxEnt 00:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Developmental and Molecular Biology Spring 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mhurt2020 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dvassallo2020.

— Assignment last updated by Dvassallo2020 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)