4.6 Article

von Willebrand factor and its propeptide: the influence of secretion and clearance on protein levels and the risk of venous thrombosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 4, 期 12, 页码 2556-2562

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1538-7836.2006.02273.x

关键词

coagulation factor VIII; venous thrombosis; von Willebrand factor; von Willebrand factor propeptide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives: Elevated levels of factor (F)VIII are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis. FVIII levels are determined mainly by von Willebrand factor (VWF). We have investigated the contribution of secretion and clearance rates to the elevated VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and to the risk of thrombosis. VWF is secreted in equimolar amounts with its propeptide, which has a shorter half-life. VWF propeptide can be used as a measure of VWF secretion and allows estimation of the VWF half-life. Methods and results: We have measured VWF propeptide, VWF:Ag, FVIII:Ag and FVIII activity (FVIII:C) in the Leiden Thrombophilia Study. In controls, high VWF propeptide was associated with high VWF:Ag, FVIII:Ag and FVIII:C. In contrast to mature VWF:Ag, VWF propeptide was not influenced by blood groups. Using an ELISA-based assay we have shown that VWF propeptide lacks ABO antigens. Levels were higher in men and increased with age. A long VWF half-life was also associated with high VWF:Ag, FVIII:Ag and FVIII:C. The VWF half-life was influenced by blood group (10 h in O vs. 12 h in non-O individuals), but not by sex, and only slightly by age. VWF propeptide was higher in thrombosis patients than in controls. The VWF half-life was similar in patients and controls (11.4 and 11.1 h, respectively). Conclusions: Both secretion and clearance rates are important determinants of VWF and FVIII levels. However, mainly high VWF and FVIII levels caused by increased secretion seem to be associated with thrombosis. ABO blood group influences the clearance rates of VWF rather than VWF secretion rates.

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