4.6 Article

Anopheline anti-platelet protein from a malaria vector mosquito has anti-thrombotic effects in vivo without compromising hemostasis

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 129, 期 2, 页码 169-175

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2011.09.015

关键词

anti-platelet agents; platelet aggregation; bleeding; collagen; mosquito; salivary gland

资金

  1. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23659216, 21390126] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The saliva of blood-feeding animals (e.g., mosquitoes, ticks, bats) has pharmacological activities that facilitate efficient blood-sucking. We previously identified a unique anti-platelet protein, anopheline anti-platelet protein (AAPP), from the salivary gland of female Anopheles stephensi (human malaria vector mosquito). AAPP specifically blocks platelet adhesion to collagen by binding directly to collagen and subsequently aggregating platelets. To examine the potential of AAPP as a therapeutic agent, we investigated the in vivo anti-thrombotic effects of AAPP. Materials and Methods: Effects of AAPP on whole blood/platelet aggregation in mice were examined. AAPP was also challenged in an established model of pulmonary thromboembolism in mice. We simultaneously investigated the side-effects of the protein (prolongation of bleeding time and coagulation time). Aspirin was used as a positive control for comparison of anti-thrombotic effects. Results and Conclusions: AAPP inhibited whole blood aggregation induced by collagen at 10 mg/kg body weight. AAPP prevented pulmonary death at a lower dose (3 mg/kg) without prolongation of bleeding time compared with aspirin (100 mg/kg) that compromised hemostasis. AAPP and aspirin did not affect coagulation time. These results indicate that AAPP has great potential as a new anti-platelet agent with a better risk/benefit ratio than that seen with aspirin (the most widely used anti-platelet agent). (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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