4.7 Article

Both TMEM16F-dependent and TMEM16F-independent pathways contribute to phosphatidylserine exposure in platelet apoptosis and platelet activation

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 121, Issue 10, Pages 1850-1857

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-09-454314

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Cardiovascular Centre, Maastricht
  2. Center for Translational Molecular Medicine INCOAG
  3. Landsteiner Foundation for Blood Transfusion Research [1006]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scott syndrome, a bleeding disorder caused by defective phospholipid scrambling, has been associated with mutations in the TMEM16F gene. The role of TMEM16F in apoptosis-or agonist-induced phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure was studied in platelets from a Scott syndrome patient and control subjects. Whereas stimulation of control platelets with the BH3-mimetic ABT737 resulted in 2 distinct fractions with moderate and high PS exposure, the high PS-exposing fraction was markedly delayed in Scott platelets. High, but not moderate, PS exposure in platelets was suppressed by chelation of intracellular Ca2+, whereas caspase inhibition completely abolished ABT737-induced PS exposure in both Scott and control platelets. On the other hand, high PS exposure induced by the Ca2+-mobilizing agonists convulxin/thrombin fully relied on mitochondrial depolarization and was virtually absent in Scott platelets. Finally, PS exposure induced by collagen/thrombin was partly affected in Scott platelets, and the residual PS positive fraction was insensitive to inhibition of caspases or mitochondrial depolarization. In conclusion, TMEM16F is not required for, but enhances, caspase-dependent PS exposure; convulxin-/thrombin-induced PS exposure is entirely dependent on TMEM16F, whereas collagen/thrombin-induced PS exposure results from 2 distinct pathways, one of which involves mitochondrial depolarization and is mediated by TMEM16F.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available