Table 2

HSC frequency and function using different flow criteria

HSC measureYoung ALOld ALOld DR
mKSL criterion    
    LT-HSC/106 viable BMC 99 ± 19 1847 ± 341* 752 ± 145* 
    RU/106 viable BMC 10 ± 2 6 ± 3 15 ± 4 
    RU/103 LT-HSC 107 ± 29 2 ± 1 21 ± 2 
SP+Kit criterion    
    HSC/106 viable BMC 261 ± 48 199 ± 68 336 ± 56 
    RU/106 viable BMC 11 ± 3 0.3 ± 0.1 17 ± 7 
    RU/103 HSC 47 ± 21 2 ± 1 54 ± 26 
HSC measureYoung ALOld ALOld DR
mKSL criterion    
    LT-HSC/106 viable BMC 99 ± 19 1847 ± 341* 752 ± 145* 
    RU/106 viable BMC 10 ± 2 6 ± 3 15 ± 4 
    RU/103 LT-HSC 107 ± 29 2 ± 1 21 ± 2 
SP+Kit criterion    
    HSC/106 viable BMC 261 ± 48 199 ± 68 336 ± 56 
    RU/106 viable BMC 11 ± 3 0.3 ± 0.1 17 ± 7 
    RU/103 HSC 47 ± 21 2 ± 1 54 ± 26 

For each flow criterion, the frequency (± SE) of HSCs and functional abilities (RU) were determined in separate groups of BALB BMC donors that are subsets of those presented in Figure 2A,B. The mKSL flow criterion48  used lineage, Sca-1+, c-Kit+, CD34, and Flk2, whereas the SP+Kit criterion used the Hoescht effluxing, double-negative side population,37,38,44,45  plus c-Kit+. Because HSCs were defined per viable BMC and functional ability (RU) per total BMCs, the ratio is a lower limit. However, flow cytometry viabilities were about the same in both experiments, so relative ratios are correct.

*

P < .001 versus young AL controls.

P < .01 versus young AL controls.

P < .05 versus young AL controls.

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal