4.7 Review

Roles of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) in megakaryopoiesis and platelet function:: studies using a megakaryocyte lineage-specific FAK knockout

期刊

BLOOD
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 596-604

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2007-05-089680

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL078784-04, P01 HL078784, P01 HL057900, HL57900, HL78784] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01DK49855, R01 DK049855] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) plays a key role in mediating signaling downstream of integrins and growth factor receptors. In this study, we determined the roles of FAK in vivo by generating a megakaryocyte lineage-specific FAK-null mouse (Pf4-Cre/FAK-floxed). Megakaryocyte and platelet FAK expression was ablated in Pf4-Cre/FAK-floxed mice without affecting expression of the FAK homologue PYK2, although PYK2 phosphorylation was increased in FAK(-/-) megakaryocytes in response to fibrinogen. Megakaryopoiesis is greatly enhanced in Pf4-Cre/FAK-floxed mice, with significant increases in megakaryocytic progenitors (CFU-MIK), mature megakaryocytes, megakaryocyte ploidy, and moderate increases in resting platelet number and platelet recovery following a thrombocytopenic stress. Thrombopoietin (Tpo)-mediated activation of Lyn kinase, a negative regulator of megakaryopoiesis, is severely attenuated in FAK-null megakaryocytes compared with wild-type controls. In contrast, Tpo-mediated activation of positive megakaryopoiesis regulators such as ERK1/2 and AKT is increased in FAK-null megakaryocytes, providing a plausible explanation for the observed increases in megakaryopoiesis in these mice. In Pf4-Cre/FAK-floxed mice, rebleeding times are significantly increased, and FAK-null platelets exhibit diminished spreading on immobilized fibrinogen. These studies establish clear roles for FAK in megakaryocyte growth and platelet function, setting the stage for manipulation of this component of the Tpo signaling apparatus for therapeutic benefit.

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