American Society of Hematology

Figure 4

$Figure 4. Participation of a nonmetabolic isocitrate signaling pathway. (A) Cellular ATP, NADH, and NADPH levels in day 5 erythroid cultures. Shown are means ± SEMs for 3 independent experiments. (B) Viability effects of L- versus D-isocitrate in erythroid iron restriction. Erythroid cultures received 1mM, 5mM, and 10mM isocitrate (IC) enantiomers, with FACS analysis on day 5. Graph summarizes 3 independent experiments with the use of 10mM isocitrate. **P = .012 for D-IC + 15% versus 15% and 0.017 for L-IC + 15% versus 15%. No significant difference was seen for D-IC + 15% versus L-IC + 15%. (C) Effects of L- versus D-isocitrate on erythroid differentiation. FACS analysis of GPA and CD41 expression in cultures from panel B, with gating on viable fraction. **P = .04 for D-IC + 15% versus 15%; *P = .05 for L-IC + 15% versus 15%. In addition, P = .05 for D-IC + 15% versus L-IC + 15%.$

Participation of a nonmetabolic isocitrate signaling pathway. (A) Cellular ATP, NADH, and NADPH levels in day 5 erythroid cultures. Shown are means ± SEMs for 3 independent experiments. (B) Viability effects of L- versus D-isocitrate in erythroid iron restriction. Erythroid cultures received 1mM, 5mM, and 10mM isocitrate (IC) enantiomers, with FACS analysis on day 5. Graph summarizes 3 independent experiments with the use of 10mM isocitrate. **P = .012 for D-IC + 15% versus 15% and 0.017 for L-IC + 15% versus 15%. No significant difference was seen for D-IC + 15% versus L-IC + 15%. (C) Effects of L- versus D-isocitrate on erythroid differentiation. FACS analysis of GPA and CD41 expression in cultures from panel B, with gating on viable fraction. **P = .04 for D-IC + 15% versus 15%; *P = .05 for L-IC + 15% versus 15%. In addition, P = .05 for D-IC + 15% versus L-IC + 15%.

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only