4.7 Article

Endothelial von Willebrand factor recruits platelets to atherosclerosis-prone sites in response to hypercholesterolemia

期刊

BLOOD
卷 99, 期 12, 页码 4486-4493

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V99.12.4486

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Platelets are thought to play a causal role during atherogenesis. Platelet-endothelial interactions in vivo and their molecular mechanisms under shear are, however, incompletely characterized. Here, an in vivo platelet homing assay was used in hypercholesterolemic rabbits to track platelet adhesion to plaque predilection sites. The role of platelet versus aortic endothelial cell (EC) activation was studied in an ex vivo flow chamber. Pathways of human platelet immobilization were detailed during in vitro perfusion studies. In rabbits, a 0.125% cholesterol diet induced no lesions within 3 months, but fatty streaks were found after 12 months. ECs at segmental arteries of 3-month rabbits expressed more von Willebrand factor (VWF) and recruited 5-fold more platelets than controls (P <.05, n = 5 and 4, respectively). The 3-month ostia had an increased likelihood to recruit platelets compared to control ostia (56% versus 18%, P <.0001, n = 89 and 63, respectively). Ex vivo, the adhesion of 3-month platelets to 3-month aortas was 8.4-fold increased compared to control studies (P <.01, In = 7 and 5, respectively). In vitro, endothelial VWF-platelet glycoprotein (GP) Ib and platelet P-selectin-endothelial P-selectin glycoprotein ligand 1 interactions accounted in combination for 83% of translocation and 90% of adhesion (P <.01, n = 4) of activated human platelets to activated human ECs. Platelet tethering was mainly mediated by platelet GP1ba, whereas platelet GPIIb/IIIa contributed 20% to arrest (P <.05). In conclusion, hypercholesterolemia primes platelets for recruitment via VWF, GPIbalpha, and P-selectin to lesion-prone sites, before lesions are detectable. (Blood. 2002; 99:4486-4493) (C) 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.

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