Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 2;32(1):53-70.e8.
doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2024.10.013. Epub 2024 Nov 12.

Post-transplant G-CSF impedes engraftment of gene-edited human hematopoietic stem cells by exacerbating p53-mediated DNA damage response

Affiliations

Post-transplant G-CSF impedes engraftment of gene-edited human hematopoietic stem cells by exacerbating p53-mediated DNA damage response

Daisuke Araki et al. Cell Stem Cell. .

Abstract

Granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is commonly used to accelerate recovery from neutropenia following chemotherapy and autologous transplantation of hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) for malignant disorders. However, its utility after ex vivo gene therapy in human HSPCs remains unexplored. We show that administering G-CSF from day 1 to 14 post-transplant impedes engraftment of CRISPR-Cas9 gene-edited human HSPCs in murine xenograft models. G-CSF affects gene-edited HSPCs through a cell-intrinsic mechanism, causing proliferative stress and amplifying the early p53-mediated DNA damage response triggered by Cas9-mediated DNA double-strand breaks. This underscores a threshold mechanism where p53 activation must reach a critical level to impair cellular function. Transiently inhibiting p53 or delaying the initiation of G-CSF treatment to day 5 post-transplant attenuates its negative impact on gene-edited HSPCs. The potential for increased HSPC toxicity associated with post-transplant G-CSF administration in CRISPR-Cas9 autologous HSPC gene therapy warrants consideration in clinical trials.

Keywords: CRISPR-Cas9; DNA damage response; DNA double-stranded breaks; G-CSF; apoptosis; cell-cycle arrest; gene editing; granulocyte colony stimulating factor; hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells; p53 pathway.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests.

Update of

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sagoo P, and Gaspar HB (2023). The transformative potential of HSC gene therapy as a genetic medicine. Gene Ther 30, 197–215. 10.1038/s41434-021-00261-x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wolff JH, and Mikkelsen JG (2022). Delivering genes with human immunodeficiency virus-derived vehicles: still state-of-the-art after 25 years. J Biomed Sci 29, 79. 10.1186/s12929-022-00865-4. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Malech HL, Garabedian EK, and Hsieh MM (2022). Evolution of Gene Therapy, Historical Perspective. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 36, 627–645. 10.1016/j.hoc.2022.05.001. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferrari G, Thrasher AJ, and Aiuti A (2021). Gene therapy using haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Nat Rev Genet 22, 216–234. 10.1038/s41576-020-00298-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cavazzana M, Bushman FD, Miccio A, Andre-Schmutz I, and Six E (2019). Gene therapy targeting haematopoietic stem cells for inherited diseases: progress and challenges. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18, 447–462. 10.1038/s41573-019-0020-9. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources