Skip to main content
. 2009 Apr 10;113(23):5757–5764. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-01-201939

Figure 1.

Figure 1

The discrepancy between the in vitro and in vivo myeloid differentiation potential of VCAM-1−RAG1− MPPs. (A) Hierarchical relationship of hematopoietic progenitors. The MPP population is subdivided into 3 fractions based on Flt3 (F) and VCAM-1 (V) expression.4 Lymphoid (L), GM, and MegE (E) potential of each population is also indicated. This scheme is based on the conceptual in vivo contribution of the populations to the various hematopoietic lineages; other models have been proposed as well.41 CMP, common myeloid progenitor; GMP, granulocyte/macrophage progenitor; MEP, megakaryocyte/erythroid progenitor. (B) Analysis of RAG1 (GFP) expression in Flt3lowVCAM-1+, Flt3highVCAM-1+, and Flt3highVCAM-1− MPPs4 in RAG1-GFP KI mice by FACS. FACS plots shown are pregated on parameters defining each MPP subset, as previously described.4 (C) In vitro GM differentiation potential of VCAM-1+RAG1−, VCAM-1−RAG1−, and VCAM-1−RAG1+ MPPs in methylcellulose culture in the presence of SCF, IL-3, IL-6, and with (□) or without (■) GM-CSF. (D) In vivo differentiation potential of VCAM-1+RAG1−, VCAM-1−RAG1−, and VCAM-1−RAG1+ MPPs into GM cells. (E) The frequency of MPPs in each subset giving rise to B (B220+CD19+) and T (Thy-1+CD25+) cells in OP9 or OP9-DL1 cocultures. (F) Clonal analysis of GM (Mac-1+) and B-cell (B220+CD19+) differentiation potential.2 *P < .05 (statistical significance) by Student t test.