4.4 Article

Rac1 is essential for phospholipase C-γ2 activation in platelets

期刊

PFLUGERS ARCHIV-EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY
卷 457, 期 5, 页码 1173-1185

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00424-008-0573-7

关键词

Ca2+ mobilization; G-protein; IP3; Phospholipase C; Platelets; Rac1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Platelet activation at sites of vascular injury is triggered through different signaling pathways leading to activation of phospholipase (PL) C beta or PLC gamma 2. Active PLCs trigger Ca2+ mobilization and entry, which is a prerequisite for adhesion, secretion, and thrombus formation. PLC beta isoenzymes are activated downstream of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), whereas PLC gamma 2 is activated downstream of immunoreceptor tyrosine-based activation motif (ITAM)-coupled receptors, such as the major platelet collagen receptor glycoprotein (GP) VI or CLEC-2. The mechanisms underlying PLC regulation are not fully understood. An involvement of small GTPases of the Rho family (Rho, Rac, Cdc42) in PLC activation has been proposed but this has not been investigated in platelets. We here show that murine platelets lacking Rac1 display severely impaired GPVI- or CLEC-2-dependent activation and aggregation. This defect was associated with impaired production of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (IP3) and intracellular calcium mobilization suggesting inappropriate activation of PLC gamma 2 despite normal tyrosine phosphorylation of the enzyme. Rac1 (-/-) platelets displayed defective thrombus formation on collagen under flow conditions which could be fully restored by co-infusion of ADP and the TxA(2) analog U46619, indicating that impaired GPVI-, but not G-protein signaling, was responsible for the observed defect. In line with this, Rac1 (-/-) mice were protected in two collagen-dependent arterial thrombosis models. Together, these results demonstrate that Rac1 is essential for ITAM-dependent PLC gamma 2 activation in platelets and that this is critical for thrombus formation in vivo.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据