4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Selectins influence thrombosis in a mouse model of experimental deep venous thrombosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
卷 108, 期 2, 页码 212-221

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/jsre.2002.6552

关键词

venous thrombosis; selectins; mouse; inferior vena cava

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. This study characterizes venous thrombosis in the mouse and examines the important role that the adhesion molecules P-selectin and E-selectin and the anti-inflammatory cytokine interleukin-10 (IL-10) play in the thrombotic process. Materials and methods. C57BL/6 (wild-type) mice in a natural history protocol (Phase 1) and gene-targeted (KO) mice for P-selectin, E-selectin, P/E-selectin, and IL-10 in a follow-up protocol (Phase 11) were studied. Inferior vena caval thrombosis was produced by ligation just below the renal veins, and mice were sacrificed and evaluated at various time points up to 12 days later. Results. Phase I: A significant increase in neutrophils on day 2 and in monocytes on day 6 postthrombosis was found in ligated vs sham animals. An associated significant increase in vein wall P-selectin mRNA (6 h, day 2) and an increase in protein (6 h through day 6) were found, while E-selectin mRNA was significantly increased (day 2 through day 6), with a smaller increase in E-selectin protein. IL-10 mRNA increased significantly later (day 2 through day 9), with the values increasing progressively. A positive correlation existed (r = 0.77) between neutrophils and thrombosis at day 2. Phase H. The E-selectin and P/E-selectin double-KO mice showed the least thrombus at day 2 vs wild-type clotted mice, P < 0.01. Additionally, P/E-KO mice demonstrated the lowest inflammatory cell extravasation into the vein wall at day 2. Conclusions. This study demonstrates an acute to chronic inflammatory response in the vein wall associated with venous thrombosis. Inhibition of selectins decreased thrombus formation. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA).

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

4.5
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