Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates that PRV-1, erythroid colonies, and platelet Mpl do not predict thrombosis in essential thrombocythaemia, indicating they cannot serve as surrogate risk markers.
Females with the monoclonal type of essential thrombocythaemia (ET), based on the X-chromosome inactivation pattern (XCIP), have previously been shown to present a higher incidence of thrombosis than polyclonal ones. We aimed to assess correlations between XCIP, thrombosis, and three epigenetic markers of ET, namely PRV-1 overexpression, endogenous erythroid colony (EEC) formation, and reduced platelet Mpl content. Fifty-three (60%) of 88 subjects studied had monoclonal myelopoiesis and presented a 32% incidence of major thrombosis compared with 6% of polyclonal subjects (P = 0.009). The frequency of abnormalities of PRV-1, EEC, or Mpl was similar in monoclonal and polyclonal subjects (respectively, 28%, 48%, 75%, and 37%, 27%, 63%), and none of them correlated with thrombosis. We conclude that the exploited epigenetic markers constitute independent phenotypic variations and are not clustered according to monoclonality of myelopoiesis in ET; none of them could serve as a surrogate marker of thrombotic risk in male subjects with ET.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vannucchi et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: