4.7 Article

Aspects of hydrodynamic shear regulating shear-induced platelet activation and self-association of von Willebrand factor in suspension

期刊

BLOOD
卷 101, 期 7, 页码 2637-2645

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2002-05-1550

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The binding of plasma von Willebrand factor (VWF) to platelet receptor Gplb under high hydrodynamic shear leads to platelet activation and subsequent shear-induced platelet aggregation (SIPA). We quantitatively examined the aspects of fluid flow that regulate platelet activation by subjecting human blood and isolated platelets to well-defined shear conditions in a cone-plate viscometer. We made the following observations. First, Annexin V binding to phosphatidyl serine expressed on activated cells was detectable within 10 seconds of shear application. Second, fluid shear stress rather than shear rate controls platelet activation, and a threshold shear stress of approximately 80 dyn/ cm(2) is necessary to induce significant activation. Under these conditions, individual domains of soluble VWF and platelet Gplb are subjected to similar magnitudes of fluid forces on the order of 0.1 pN, whereas Gplb with bound VWF is subjected to 1 pN. Third, cell-cell collisions and time-varying stresses are not essential for platelet activation. Fourth, the mechanism of platelet activation can be resolved in 2 steps based on the contribution of VWF and fluid forces. Fluid shear and VWF are required during the first step, when Gplb-VWF binding likely occurs. Subsequently, high shear forces alone in the absence of VWF in suspension can induce platelet activation. In other experiments, purified VWF was subjected to shear in the viscometer, and VWF morphology was assessed using light scattering. These studies demonstrate, for the first time, the ability of hydrodynamic forces to induce VWF aggregation in suspension. This VWF self-association may be an additional feature involved in controlling cell adhesion rates in circulation.

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

4.7
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