4.2 Article

Measurement of phosphatidylserine exposure during storage of platelet concentrates using the novel probe lactadherin: a comparison study with annexin V

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 99-107

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01933.x

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Annexin V binding to platelets (PLTs) is considered the gold standard for monitoring phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure. However, recent comparison of annexin V with the new calcium-independent PS probe lactadherin revealed that annexin V requires a certain threshold of PS exposure (2%-8%) for binding to occur. The aim of this study was to compare annexin V and lactadherin labeling of PLTs in PLT concentrates (PCs). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Optimal labeling conditions for lactadherin and annexin V were established and then compared in either resting or calcium ionophore (CI)-activated PLTs from normal whole blood. Furthermore, 40 PCs (20 apheresis-derived and 20 pooled buffy coat-derived) were stored under standard blood bank conditions and PLT activation was monitored by measuring PS exposure with annexin V and lactadherin along with CD42b, CD61, and CD62P by flow cytometry on Days 1, 3, 5, and 7. RESULTS: Lactadherin reported a higher exposure of PS than did annexin V in normal PLTs at submaximal doses of CI. PLTs from both types of concentrate, as expected, demonstrated evidence of increased activation during storage using annexin V, lactadherin, CD42b, or CD62P. However, a significantly higher percentage of PS-positive PLTs was found with lactadherin than annexin V. CONCLUSION: PS exposure on the surface of stored PLTs has been previously underestimated due to the wide use of annexin V. Lactadherin provides a truer reflection of the degree of PS exposure and offers a new calcium-independent approach to studying PLT activation and/or apoptosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available