Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • Vascular Malformations (Apr 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

Comparative effects in vivo of recombinant murine interleukin 3, natural murine colony-stimulating factor-1, and recombinant murine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on myelopoiesis in mice.
H E Broxmeyer, … , D L Urdal, D C Bicknell
H E Broxmeyer, … , D L Urdal, D C Bicknell
Published March 1, 1987
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1987;79(3):721-730. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI112877.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

Comparative effects in vivo of recombinant murine interleukin 3, natural murine colony-stimulating factor-1, and recombinant murine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor on myelopoiesis in mice.

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Purified murine colony-stimulating factors (CSF) recombinant interleukin 3 (IL-3), natural CSF-1, and recombinant granulocyte-macrophage (GM) CSF were assessed in vivo for their effects on BDF1 mouse bone marrow and spleen granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM), erythroid (BFU-E), and multipotential (CFU-GEMM) progenitor cells in untreated mice and in mice pretreated with purified iron-saturated human lactoferrin (LF). The CSF and LF preparations did not contain detectable endotoxin (less than 0.1 ng). Mice pretreated with LF were more sensitive to the effects of CSF. In mice pretreated with LF, 2,000 U IL-3 or 20,000 U CSF-1 significantly enhanced the cycling status and absolute numbers of all progenitors, whereas 20,000 U GM-CSF significantly increased the cycling status of CFU-GM and CFU-GEMM, but had no effect on cycling of BFU-E or on numbers of any of the progenitors. The effects of CSF in mice pretreated with LF were not mimicked by 0.1-100 ng E. coli lipopolysaccharide.

Authors

H E Broxmeyer, D E Williams, S Cooper, R K Shadduck, S Gillis, A Waheed, D L Urdal, D C Bicknell

×

Usage data is cumulative from June 2024 through June 2025.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 171 2
PDF 59 12
Scanned page 414 0
Citation downloads 69 0
Totals 713 14
Total Views 727
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts