4.6 Article

Measurement of erythrocyte membrane mannoses to assess splenic function

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 198, 期 1, 页码 155-164

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.18164

关键词

glycosylation; membrane editing; oxidative damage; red blood cells; splenectomy

资金

  1. Aberdeen University Development Trust
  2. Friends of Anchor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red blood cells lose their plasma membrane as they age, a process mediated by a molecule called high-mannose glycans. These glycans are recognized by specific cells in the spleen and lead to extravascular hemolysis. Research has found that patients with certain diseases or those who have undergone splenectomy exhibit significantly higher levels of these glycans on the surface of their red blood cells.
Red blood cells (RBCs) lose plasma membrane in the spleen as they age, but the cells and molecules involved are yet to be identified. Sickle cell disease and infection by Plasmodium falciparum cause oxidative stress that induces aggregates of cross-linked proteins with N-linked high-mannose glycans (HMGs). These glycans can be recognised by mannose-binding lectins, including the mannose receptor (CD206), expressed on macrophages and specialised phagocytic endothelial cells in the spleen to mediate the extravascular haemolysis characteristic of these diseases. We postulated this system might also mediate removal of molecules and membrane in healthy individuals. Surface expression of HMGs on RBCs from patients who had previously undergone splenectomy was therefore assessed: high levels were indeed observable as large membrane aggregates. Glycomic analysis by mass spectrometry identified a mixture of Man(5-9)GlcNAc(2) structures. HMG levels correlated well with manual pit counts (r = 0.75-0.85). To assess further whether HMGs might act as a splenic reticuloendothelial function test, we measured levels on RBCs from patients with potential functional hyposplenism, some of whom exhibited high levels that may indicate risk of complications.

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