4.4 Article

Cytoskeletal-based mechanisms differently regulate in vivo and in vitro proplatelet formation

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 1368-1380

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2019.239111

关键词

-

资金

  1. EFS
  2. FRM (foundation pour la Recherche Medicale) fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Platelets are produced through native proplatelets (nPPT) from bone marrow megakaryocytes, with the elongation of nPPT in living mice found to be in equilibrium between protrusion and retraction forces mediated by myosin-IIA. The behavior of microtubules differs between cPPT and nPPT in different mouse models, with microtubules playing a critical role in vitro but less so in vivo. Additionally, it was discovered that blood Stokes' forces may be sufficient to promote nPPT extension independently of myosin and microtubules, proposing a new mechanism for nPPT extension.
Platelets are produced by bone marrow megakaryocytes through cytoplasmic protrusions, named native proplatelets (nPPT), into blood vessels. Proplatelets also refer to protrusions observed in megakaryocyte culture (cultured proplatelets [cPPT]) which are morphologically different. Contrary to cPPT, the mechanisms of nPPT formation are poorly understood. We show here in living mice that nPPT elongation is in equilibrium between protrusion and retraction forces mediated by myosin-IIA. We also found, using wild-type and b1-tubulin-deficient mice, that microtubule behavior differs between cPPT and nPPT, being absolutely required in vitro, while less critical in vivo. Remarkably, micro tubule depolymerization in myosin-deficient mice did not affect nPPT elongation. We then calculated that blood Stokes? forces may be sufficient to promote nPPT extension, independently of myosin and microtubules. Together, we propose a new mechanism for nPPT extension that might explain contradictions between severely affected cPPT production and moderate platelet count defects in some patients and animal models.

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