Asquith Becca, Debacq Christophe, Macallan Derek C, Willems Luc, Bangham Charles R M
Dept of Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, Norfolk Place, London, UK W2 1PG.
Trends Immunol. 2002 Dec;23(12):596-601. doi: 10.1016/s1471-4906(02)02337-2.
DNA labelling provides an exciting tool for elucidating the in vivo dynamics of lymphocytes. However, the kinetics of label incorporation and loss are complex and results can depend on the method of interpretation. Here we describe two approaches to interpreting labelling data. Both seek to explain the common observation that the estimated death rate of lymphocytes is higher than their estimated proliferation rate. In the first approach, an additional source of lymphocytes is postulated. In the second, it is maintained that lymphocyte heterogeneity is sufficient to account for the observation. We explain why we favour the second approach, arguing that the addition of a large source of lymphocytes is unnecessary and difficult to reconcile with what is currently known about lymphocyte physiology. We discuss how the choice of model can affect data interpretation.
DNA标记为阐明淋巴细胞的体内动力学提供了一种令人兴奋的工具。然而，标记掺入和丢失的动力学很复杂，结果可能取决于解释方法。在这里，我们描述两种解释标记数据的方法。两者都试图解释一个常见的观察结果，即淋巴细胞的估计死亡率高于其估计增殖率。在第一种方法中，假定存在淋巴细胞的额外来源。在第二种方法中，认为淋巴细胞异质性足以解释该观察结果。我们解释了为什么我们支持第二种方法，认为添加大量淋巴细胞来源是不必要的，并且难以与目前已知的淋巴细胞生理学相协调。我们讨论了模型选择如何影响数据解释。
