4.8 Article

Bradykinin forming capacity of oversulfated chondroitin sulfate contaminated heparin in vitro

期刊

BIOMATERIALS
卷 31, 期 22, 页码 5741-5748

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.03.074

关键词

Heparin; Oversulfated chondroitin sulfate; Bradykinin; Anaphylactoid reaction

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [MOP-93773]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1-R01-HL079184]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS) contaminated heparin has been associated with severe anaphylactoid reaction (AR), mainly in dialysed patients. Although attributed to bradykinin (BK) released during contact system activation by OSCS, no definitive evidence exists until now for a BK release during incubation of contaminated heparin with human plasma. In this study, we investigated the kinin forming capacity of OSCS and OSCS contaminated heparin when incubated in vitro with a pool of human plasma. At 100 mu g/mL, OSCS liberates BK in a profile similar but not identical to dextran sulfate, a well known activator of the plasma contact system. The results have highlighted that the quantity of BK accumulated during contact system activation depends not only on the concentration of OSCS but also on the plasma dilution and the presence of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor. We demonstrate a highly significant correlation between the concentration of OSCS present in the contaminated heparin and BK released concentration. In conclusion, for the first time, we show that OSCS contaminated heparin incubated with human plasma has the capacity to liberate BK at a concentration that could explain the role of this inflammatory peptide in the pathophysiology of AR associated with OSCS contaminated heparin. Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this article have not been formally disseminated by the Food and Drug Administration and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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