|
|
||||||||
CONCISE REVIEW |
Division of Cancer and Haematology, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
Key Words. Leukemia inhibitory factor • Embryonic stem cells • Polyfunctionality
Correspondence:
Donald Metcalf, A.C., M.D., Professor Emeritus, Division of Cancer and Haematology, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, 1G Royal Parade, Parkville Victoria 3050, Australia. Telephone: 61-3-9345-2555; Fax: 61-3-9347-0852; e-mail: metcalf{at}wehi.edu.au
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Of the many observed actions of LIF, its outstanding ability to preserve the totipotentiality of murine embryonic stem cells has assured it a continuing role in experimental biology [2, 3]. Despite this, LIF seems now to have entered that peculiar limbo world occupied by many "middle-aged" regulators in which the regulator remains familiar but is no longer fashionable. LIF continues to be studied actively by disparate groups of biologists, but the key word is disparate. The hematologists, neurobiologists, muscle cell biologists, bone biologists, endocrinologists, and reproductive biologists involved are each steadily expanding knowledge of their particular facet. What appear to be missing are serious attempts to link these disparate pieces of biology into a coordinated framework that provides a cogent rationale for the existence of LIF. Why does the body use a pleiotropic molecule like LIF? This would appear to be a recipe for disaster, yet there must be a compelling reason. So far, no one appears willing or able to address the central questions being posed by LIF or the allied pleiotropic molecules interleukin (IL)-6, IL-11, and oncostatin M (OSM).
In the hope of refocusing attention on some of the major biological problems posed by LIF, this review briefly summarizes, some of the recent work in the various fields in which LIF action is being explored. The referencing is idiosyncratic, and for this I apologize. It often merely singles out a few recent publications in each subfield as illustrative examples. This cavalier approach will at times be unfair to those originally describing key phenomena, but the referencing is mainly designed to signal that a subfield is substantive and needs serious consideration when trying to synthesize general ideas regarding LIF.
| LIF AS A CANDIDATE HEMATOPOIETIC REGULATOR |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-helix polypeptide chain. LIF was purified from medium conditioned by Krebs-II ascites tumor cells and then cloned from a murine T-lymphocyte cDNA library as a factor able to induce macrophage maturation and terminate self-renewal of the undifferentiated and highly clonogenic murine myeloid leukemia, M1 [4, 5]. Combination of these actions suppressed the leukemic population, hence the name assigned. Cloning of the corresponding human LIF cDNA was performed using the murine cDNA as a probe [6]. The name "leukemia inhibitory factor" has proven to be quite inappropriate for this highly polyfunctional molecule, but at least it has preserved LIF from the indignity of ending up merely with an anonymous IL- or CD-barcode number. LIF was presumed to be a factor playing some regulatory role in hematopoiesis and possibly having a special suppressive action on some myeloid leukemias. It is odd that there appears to have been no subsequent extensive attempt to explore the possible suppressive action of LIF on primary human myeloid leukemic cells in vitro, although this would be easy enough to explore in clonal cultures.
In initial studies, LIF appeared to have no obvious ability to stimulate hematopoietic colony formation in vitro [7], although it potentiated mouse megakaryocyte colony formation stimulated in vitro by IL-3 [8]. In subsequent studies, LIF has been shown to reproducibly enhance blast colony formation by murine marrow cells when stimulated by Flk ligand, a system in which the blast colony cells can be shown to be macrophage progenitor cells, many with an ability to form dendritic cell progeny [9]. Further, LIF was able to stimulate the proliferation of the human factor-dependent hematopoietic cell line, DA [10], and the factor-dependent murine leukemic cell line, GB2, with the formation by the latter cells of undifferentiated blast colonies, although GB2 cells readily differentiate when stimulated by other growth factors [11]. Possible actions of LIF in enhancing stem cell proliferation have been reported [1214], but LIF has not clearly emerged as being of high importance for the in vitro culture of hematopoietic stem cells.
When injected into mice, LIF elevated megakaryocyte and platelet numbers, with peak responses occurring 7-10 days after commencement of injections [15]. Other LIF-induced changes were an increase in erythrocyte sedimentation rate and elevated calcium to albumin ratios in the serum. In primate studies, LIF exhibited equivalent potency in elevating platelet levels to those shown by IL-6 or IL-11 [16]. The subsequent approval of IL-11 for clinical use as a platelet-stimulating agent owes more to a highly focused development program and astute clinical trials than to any major difference among these three agents in their ability to promote platelet formation.
It is now well accepted that hematopoietic regulators are polyfunctional and do not merely stimulate cell proliferation. LIF receptors on murine hematopoietic populations are mainly restricted to cells of the monocyte lineage [17], but no attempts have been made to establish whether LIF has actions on maturation induction or functional activation of monocytic cells, although functional activation of platelets by LIF has been described [18].
| LIF AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
It is intriguing why LIF has a differentiation-inducing action on leukemic cells but a differentiation-preventing action on normal ES cells. Logic suggests that a common molecular pathway is likely to be involved for much of both responses, but how does the end result become opposite in the two types of responding cells? Molecular mechanisms are beginning to be identified that appear necessary for maintenance of self-renewal in response to LIF signaling, and, to date, Stat3 and Oct-3/4 seem to play key roles [20].
There is current vigorous debate on the nature of the stem cells being detected in adult tissues. How multipotential are these cells from adult organs? Are some the equivalent of ES cells? It is remarkable with all this current activity that no one seems to have established clearly what happens to the ES-type cells of the blastocyst as the embryo develops. Do they vanish because all become committed, or do some persist in various organs? Initial cell numbers in the blastocyst are small, but can some of these cells engage in amplifying self-generation? The defining properties of a stem cell that would identify it as of embryonic type presumably would include a certified ability for sustained self-generation plus retention of totipotentiality, the latter a cumbersome property to establish by blastocyst injection and analysis of resulting chimeras. Nevertheless, it should be technically possible to obtain some answers, particularly from cultures of cells from early embryos, with or without LIF. It is curious that the use of LIF seems not to have been prominent in current efforts to culture totipotential cells from adult organs. Why not? If the key totipotentiality-preserving action of LIF on ES and blastocyst cells persists for any surviving cells of these types in later life, there should be a marked difference between cultures with or without LIF. On this question, why are LIF-/- mice not being used in any of the current adult stem cell experiments? Indeed, do LIF-/- mice even possess cells in the marrow or elsewhere that are able to populate other organs?
| CONSEQUENCES OF EXCESS LEVELS OF LIF |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
| LIF KNOCKOUTS AND BLASTOCYST IMPLANTATION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
While LIF/ mice appear to behave normally enough, they have been reported to have major anatomical abnormalities of the hippocampus [29] and an accumulation of excess numbers of olfactory receptor neurons [30]. Appropriate stress stimuli might reveal other functional deficiencies in LIF-/- mice.
| LIF PRODUCTION SITES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| THE PROMISCUOUS LIF RECEPTOR |
|---|
|
|
|---|
chain (Fig. 2) [45]. This receptor sharing may be partly the reason why deletion of the gp130 gene is embryolethal [46], whereas deletion of the LIF gene is not.
|
The problem posed by the multiorgan sites of LIF production has been rendered less acute, at least in the mouse, by the documentation of sufficiently high levels of circulating soluble LIF receptors to block the action of any LIF in the circulation [51]. This mechanism could restrict LIF action to a particular local site of active LIF production. Thus, in pregnancy, local uterine LIF production rises, but circulating receptor levels rise even higher [52], presumably protecting the body from generalized LIF actions. Soluble LIF receptors have also been described in human serum, and during human pregnancy, soluble LIF receptor levels rise as in the mouse [53, 54].
For 20 years hematologists have had to face the puzzling fact that a single regulator, acting through a single receptor type, can elicit multiple responses in the responding cellsnot simply proliferation but also survival, differentiation commitment, maturation initiation, and functional stimulation of the mature cells. The documentation of differing functional domains in the receptor chains that allow initiation of distinct signaling events has gone some way to explain how multiple responses can be initiated by activation of a single receptor type.
For highly pleiotropic agents, such as LIF or IL-6, the problem is not much worse. The differences in elicited cell behavior seem dramatic, for example, bone formation versus neuronal signaling, but these differences simply reflect the widely differing normal functions of the responding cells. These functions may well be activated by broadly comparable molecules with those operating in hematopoietic cells [55], but there is virtually no information on possibly differing signaling components or novel combinations of nuclear transcription factors, in particular cell types expressing LIF receptors, that might permit novel responses to LIF.
If LIF can be regarded as eliciting a set of positive cellular responses, then model builders insist that, for stability of such populations, a balancing set of negative regulators must exist. It is not sufficient to have a transient induction system for LIF and possibly not enough to have soluble LIF receptors able to block LIF action.
It is of interest that for LIF, IL-6, and OSM, there is now an additional well-defined set of intracellular agents able to block, reduce, or terminate ligand-elicited signaling. These agents are the eight SH2-containing members of the suppressors of cytokine signaling (SOCS) family of proteins: cytokine-inducible SH2-containing protein (CIS) and SOCS 1-7 [56]. Typically, production of these SOCS proteins is rapidly induced by LIF or IL-6 signaling, resulting in the transient production of SOCS protein. Complete inhibition of LIF signaling has been documented in M1 cells that are overexpressing SOCS-1, -3, and probably -5 [57]. The half-lives of SOCS proteins are short. They bind to elongins B and C [58] and likely are then targeted for endosomal degradation along with any other protein bound to the SOCS protein. The SOCS proteins represent highly potent modulators of LIF signaling, but information is sparse on which LIF-responsive cell types produce which SOCS proteins. In the case of LIF action in eliciting adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) production by the pituitary, SOCS-3 appears to be the dominant suppressor of the response [59].
| THE PLEIOTROPIC ACTIONS OF LIF |
|---|
|
|
|---|
There have followed a range of reports of LIF actions, often in vitro, where LIF is not claimed necessarily as the only agent capable of eliciting the response and often is acting in collaboration with another agent. The list includes the following actions.
Kidney Actions
In collaboration with transforming growth factor ß2, LIF produced by the ureteric buds induces clumps of cultured mesenchymal cells to differentiate into glomeruli and tubules [6365].
Neuronal Functions
There have been multiple reports of LIF action on neuronal tissue, which extend the original findings in LIF/ mice: A) LIF enhances the survival of sensory and motor neurons [66]; B) LIF stimulates the formation of sensory neurons from cultures of neural crest cells [66]; C) LIF, with fibroblast growth factor (FGF) and epidermal growth factor, can allow the protracted in vitro proliferation of multipotential human neural progenitor cells [67]; D) LIF prevents oligodendrocyte death in animal models of multiple sclerosis [68]; E) Excess LIF levels reduce the number of calbindin-positive Purkinje cells in the cerebellum [69]; F) LIF enhances migration of inflammatory macrophages to damaged neuronal tissue [70], and G) LIF inhibits the maturation of olfactory receptor neurons in vivo, and excess cell numbers are found in LIF/ mice [30].
Endocrine Actions
LIF has been reported to have multiple effects on endocrine organs or their target tissues: A) LIF suppresses the proliferation in vitro of normal human breast epithelial cells and breast cancer cells [71]; B) LIF is a major regulator of ACTH production in the pituitary, and its actions are blocked by SOCS-3 [59]; C) Conversely, LIF inhibits the production of prolactin and growth hormone [72]; D) LIF promotes the production of primary follicles in the ovary from primordial follicles [73], and E) LIF reduces testosterone synthesis by Leydig cells [74] but, puzzlingly, also enhances the proliferation of primordial germ cells and spermatocyte differentiation [75, 76].
Bone Actions
In vitro studies have extended the original observation of excess bone formation in mice with excess LIF levels: A) LIF increases calcium resorption from bone and increases osteoclast numbers [77] and B) conversely, LIF enhances bone formation by binding directly to osteoblasts and increasing osteoblast numbers [78]. However, culture conditions were observed to influence whether LIF inhibited or stimulated bone formation [79].
Muscle Actions
LIF can stimulate the proliferation of muscle satellite cells [80] and can ameliorate muscle fiber degeneration in vivo in mdx mice lacking dystrophin [81]. LIF is a hypertrophic agent for cardiac muscle [82] and also for cultured cardiac myocytes [83] and reduces apoptosis in such cells [84].
Miscellaneous Effects
LIF has been reported to stimulate the proliferation of neonatal mouse epidermal melanocytes [85] and keratinocytes from patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [86] and to enhance mast cell proliferation [87]. When combined with basic FGF, LIF was noted to enhance the formation of capillary-like structures in cultures of an embryonic endothelial cell line [88]. Finally, LIF has been reported as possibly being involved in reducing vertical transmission of HIV-1 virus through the placenta [89].
This list is almost certainly incomplete but serves to document the extraordinary range of biological events in which LIF has been observed to have an action.
| IMPLICATIONS OF THE PLEIOTROPIC NATURE OF LIF |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Responsiveness of a population to LIF action depends on expression of the LIF receptor complex, with expression of the low-affinity LIF receptor presumably usually being the limiting factor because expression of gp130 is much more widespread. Virtually nothing is known of the inductive signals leading to receptor synthesis or expression. What molecular mechanisms initiate the transcription of LIF receptor mRNA and what dictates whether transmembrane or soluble receptors will be produced and in what relative amounts?
The spectacular pleiotropic actions of LIF are likely to be based mainly on the unusually broad range of cells expressing the receptor, with quite possibly an unremarkable set of signaling events [48] then eliciting cellular responses that are very different simply because the responding cells are programmed to exhibit radically different functions.
Glimpses of how one regulator might be able to achieve disparate responses do not explain why the use of LIF for a multiplicity of functions might have an advantage over a more logical system in which a set of more selective regulators could be used. LIF is a typical 4-
-helix glycoprotein, similar to other hematopoietic regulators, and there is nothing obvious about its structure that might confer superior properties on the molecule.
However, it is even more puzzling to consider why the body has chosen to use differing cell types to produce LIF and, most puzzling of all, why a wide variety of inducing signals operates to induce transcription of this single gene. Is there a common signaling pathway for LIF gene activation? How can this be activated by such differing signals, and how is the cellular production of LIF coordinated and regulated in different local sites? It is commonly assumed that end cell numbers control levels of cytokine production, but this is incorrect, even for proliferative cytokines [90]. Where a factor has no uniform action in altering target cell numbers, this method of feedback control is even less likely. The more likely mechanism for controlling such cytokine production is a demand-generated one in which completion of a needed response removes the initiating signal for elevated cytokine production. The true diversity of the biology of LIF lies therefore in the diverse biology of the inducing systems. Whether the needed responses are, for example, extra bone formation, extra platelets, improved neuronal survival, or blastocyst implantation, each of these situations must somehow be able to generate a signal regulating LIF production. How can such a bizarre assortment of inducing signals function in a rational manner?
We are at present faced with two sets of data about LIF that are not in agreement. On the one hand, from in vitro studies and some in vivo data, LIF is able to induce an amazing variety of measurable responses. On the other hand, LIF/ mice seem remarkably normal apart from an inability to become pregnant. So, is LIF a master molecule or a versatile bit player whose various roles can easily be taken over by one or another of a variety of molecules?
Resolution of this paradox depends heavily on the adequacy of knockout mice, and there are profound limitations to mice, particularly where neuronal properties are being investigated. Furthermore, knockout mice live in a near stress-free environment. How might they perform out on the street?
The truth about LIF may well be somewhere in the middle. There are other LIF-like molecules (IL-6, IL-11, and OSM), and these can elicit many responses that are similar to those of LIF. In addition, for particular end organs, there clearly are other agents able to achieve similar end results by quite independent mechanisms, e.g., bone formation, lipid metabolism, muscle cell proliferation, and growth. This suggests that LIF might be a rather trivial molecule, doing nothing special except for blastocyst implantation. Despite their limitations, this is perhaps what the knockout mice are also telling us.
The argument then comes down almost to a matter of faith. If LIF is trivial or redundant, why bother to have a LIF gene? Why busily produce LIF? Why produce membrane-displayed and soluble LIF receptors? Would the body engage in such purposeless pursuits? I think that this is so unlikely that my response would be to start looking more carefully, particularly at LIF/ mice.
If the verdict in favor of LIF as a valuable molecule is positive, if a little uncertain, what is the design advantage offered by LIF or its colleagues, such as IL-6, OSM, and IL-11? Is LIF any different from any other cytokine or hormone? Perhaps all of them are pleiotropic. Has it been that, to create a simplified order, we have assigned particular roles to individual agents, e.g., erythropoiesis for erythropoietin, platelet formation for thrombopoietin? The reality for classical hormones is quite different. An agent such as estrogen has effects on virtually every tissue in the body and it would not be too difficult to devise in vitro model systems where addition of insulin would produce remarkable and diverse responses. On the whole, endocrinologists have been remarkably silent about ascribing defined functions to their favorite molecules; they can be involved in many processesgranted, perhaps, often as bit players.
The notion of one regulator/one function may be a particular fantasy of hematologists. Even in hematology, there are no certain examples of such single-minded action even within hematopoietic populations, let alone with cells of other lineages.
The reality of regulator control in a mammalian organism may not be a series of Shakespearian declamations by major players but a continuous background of chatter as mainly redundant regulators interact with multiplicities of cell types, usually with no particular consequences other than to ensure continuing balanced interactions between the diverse populations. By selecting any one of these many interactions and examining it in isolation, we may ourselves be artificially building up a picture of an apparently important piece of biology, with the need somehow to integrate this with other very different, but also artificially created, phenomena.
So, is pleiotropy a man-made artifact originating from the mistaken notion that regulators should have single actions? Should LIF be allowed to sink quietly into obscurity as yet another "middle-aged" regulator, a retired enigma able to play many roles but only a few of which are of major importance? One thing is sure: LIF will not go away. It is needed by mouse ES cells and molecular biologists. Has it been a pathfinder? Yes, but what has it been trying to reveal: the unexpected superiority of a particular 4-
-helical molecule, or that our notions of the separateness of organ biology are incorrect and that regulators are needed that can interact with a surprising variety of cell types throughout the body?
| REFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-chain and gp130 in cell type-specific signal transduction. J Biol Chem 1997;272:1998219986.
-chain. Expression in normal, gestating, and leukemia inhibitory factor nullizygous mice. J Biol Chem 1996;271:54955504.This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. A. Linker, N. Kruse, S. Israel, T. Wei, S. Seubert, A. Hombach, B. Holtmann, F. Luhder, R. M. Ransohoff, M. Sendtner, et al. Leukemia Inhibitory Factor Deficiency Modulates the Immune Response and Limits Autoimmune Demyelination: A New Role for Neurotrophic Cytokines in Neuroinflammation J. Immunol., February 15, 2008; 180(4): 2204 - 2213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Metcalf Hematopoietic cytokines Blood, January 15, 2008; 111(2): 485 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
D. Duluc, Y. Delneste, F. Tan, M.-P. Moles, L. Grimaud, J. Lenoir, L. Preisser, I. Anegon, L. Catala, N. Ifrah, et al. Tumor-associated leukemia inhibitory factor and IL-6 skew monocyte differentiation into tumor-associated macrophage-like cells Blood, December 15, 2007; 110(13): 4319 - 4330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. A. White, J.-G. Zhang, L. A. Salamonsen, M. Baca, W. D. Fairlie, D. Metcalf, N. A. Nicola, L. Robb, and E. Dimitriadis From the Cover: Blocking LIF action in the uterus by using a PEGylated antagonist prevents implantation: A nonhormonal contraceptive strategy PNAS, December 4, 2007; 104(49): 19357 - 19362. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Sun, K. Ma, H. Wang, F. Xiao, Y. Gao, W. Zhang, K. Wang, X. Gao, N. Ip, and Z. Wu JAK1 STAT1 STAT3, a key pathway promoting proliferation and preventing premature differentiation of myoblasts J. Cell Biol., October 8, 2007; 179(1): 129 - 138. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. Huyton, J.-G. Zhang, C. S. Luo, M.-Z. Lou, D. J. Hilton, N. A. Nicola, and T. P. J. Garrett An unusual cytokine:Ig-domain interaction revealed in the crystal structure of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) in complex with the LIF receptor PNAS, July 31, 2007; 104(31): 12737 - 12742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Magni, E. Dozio, M. Ruscica, H. Watanobe, A. Cariboni, R. Zaninetti, M. Motta, and R. Maggi Leukemia Inhibitory Factor Induces the Chemomigration of Immortalized Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Neurons through the Independent Activation of the Janus Kinase/Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 3, Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase/Extracellularly Regulated Kinase 1/2, and Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinase/Akt Signaling Pathways Mol. Endocrinol., May 1, 2007; 21(5): 1163 - 1174. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Wysoczynski, K. Miekus, K. Jankowski, J. Wanzeck, S. Bertolone, A. Janowska-Wieczorek, J. Ratajczak, and M. Z. Ratajczak Leukemia Inhibitory Factor: A Newly Identified Metastatic Factor in Rhabdomyosarcomas Cancer Res., March 1, 2007; 67(5): 2131 - 2140. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. L. Price, D. A. Long, N. Jina, H. Liapis, M. Hubank, A. S. Woolf, and P. J. D. Winyard Microarray interrogation of human metanephric mesenchymal cells highlights potentially important molecules in vivo Physiol Genomics, January 17, 2007; 28(2): 193 - 202. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. O Huising, C. P Kruiswijk, and G. Flik Phylogeny and evolution of class-I helical cytokines. J. Endocrinol., April 1, 2006; 189(1): 1 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. Takaki, M. Fujimoto, K. Sugahara, T. Nakahari, S. Yonemura, Y. Tanaka, N. Hayashida, S. Inouye, T. Takemoto, H. Yamashita, et al. Maintenance of Olfactory Neurogenesis Requires HSF1, a Major Heat Shock Transcription Factor in Mice J. Biol. Chem., February 24, 2006; 281(8): 4931 - 4937. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Song and H. Lim Evidence for heterodimeric association of leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) receptor and gp130 in the mouse uterus for LIF signaling during blastocyst implantation Reproduction, February 1, 2006; 131(2): 341 - 349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Zvonic, J. E. Baugh Jr., P. Arbour-Reily, R. L. Mynatt, and J. M. Stephens Cross-talk among gp130 Cytokines in Adipocytes J. Biol. Chem., October 7, 2005; 280(40): 33856 - 33863. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. M Metcalfe Axotrophin and leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) in transplantation tolerance Phil Trans R Soc B, September 29, 2005; 360(1461): 1687 - 1694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. E. Spangenburg SOCS-3 Induces Myoblast Differentiation J. Biol. Chem., March 18, 2005; 280(11): 10749 - 10758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Hoek, D. L. Rimm, K. R. Williams, H. Zhao, S. Ariyan, A. Lin, H. M. Kluger, A. J. Berger, E. Cheng, E. S. Trombetta, et al. Expression Profiling Reveals Novel Pathways in the Transformation of Melanocytes to Melanomas Cancer Res., August 1, 2004; 64(15): 5270 - 5282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. R. Gonzalez, B. R. Rueda, M. P. Ramos, R. D. Littell, S. Glasser, and P. C. Leavis Leptin-Induced Increase in Leukemia Inhibitory Factor and Its Receptor by Human Endometrium Is Partially Mediated by Interleukin 1 Receptor Signaling Endocrinology, August 1, 2004; 145(8): 3850 - 3857. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
I. Classen-Linke, G. Muller-Newen, P.C. Heinrich, H.M. Beier, and U. von Rango The cytokine receptor gp130 and its soluble form are under hormonal control in human endometrium and decidua Mol. Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2004; 10(7): 495 - 504. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| STEM CELLS | THE ONCOLOGIST | CME | ALPHAMED PRESS JOURNALS |