4.7 Article

Contributions of extravascular and intravascular cells to fibrin network formation, structure, and stability

期刊

BLOOD
卷 114, 期 23, 页码 4886-4896

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-06-228940

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [K01AR051021, T32ES007017]
  2. Gustavus and Louise Pfeiffer Research Foundation
  3. National Hemophilia Foundation
  4. Novo Nordisk

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fibrin is essential for hemostasis; however, abnormal fibrin formation is hypothesized to increase thrombotic risk. We previously showed that in situ thrombin generation on a cell's surface modulates the 3-dimensional structure and stability of the fibrin network. Currently, we compared the abilities of extravascular and intravascular cells to support fibrin formation, structure, and stability. Extravascular cells (fibroblasts, smooth muscle) supported formation of dense fibrin networks that resisted fibrinolysis, whereas unstimulated intravascular (endothelial) cells produced coarse networks that were susceptible to fibrinolysis. All 3 cell types produced a fibrin structural gradient, with a denser network near, versus distal to, the cell surface. Although fibrin structure depended on cellular procoagulant activity, it did not reflect interactions between integrins and fibrin. These findings contrasted with those on platelets, which influenced fibrin structure via interactions between beta 3 integrins and fibrin. Inflammatory cytokines that induced prothrombotic activity on endothelial cells caused the production of abnormally dense fibrin networks that resisted fibrinolysis. Blocking tissue factor activity significantly reduced the density and stability of fibrin networks produced by cytokine-stimulated endothelial cells. Together, these findings indicate fibrin structure and stability reflect the procoagulant phenotype of the endogenous cells, and suggest abnormal fibrin structure is a novel link between inflammation and thrombosis. (Blood. 2009; 114:4886-4896)

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