Talk:Pluripotential hemopoietic stem cell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] "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)
