4.5 Article

Platelet-monocyte cross talk and tissue factor expression in stable angina vs. unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction

期刊

PLATELETS
卷 22, 期 7, 页码 530-536

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/09537104.2011.573599

关键词

Angina; blood cells; platelets; thrombosis; coagulation

资金

  1. Hans and Blanca Moser Fonds
  2. Burgermeister Fonds of Vienna [1958]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tissue factor (TF), the major procoagulant in vivo, is usually absent from blood cells. However, since both monocyte TF (MoTF) expression and platelet activation are present in acute coronary syndrome we hypothesized that MoTF expression may in part depend on monocyte platelet aggregate (MPA) formation in coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI, n = 20) had significantly higher levels of MoTF (17.4 +/- 3.1MFI) and MPAs (CD42b:273 +/- 183MFI; CD62P:256.3 +/- 48.5MFI) than patients with stable angina (SA, n = 40; MoTF: 13.2 +/- 2.2MFI, p = 0.001; CD42b: 160 +/- 113MFI, p = 0.025; CD62P:118.7 +/- 24.5MFI, p = 0.018) as measured by whole blood flow cytometry on CD14(+)-cells. TF-activity of isolated mononuclear cells (MNC) was elevated in UA/NSTEMI (75 +/- 27 pg/mL) in comparison to SA (47 +/- 17 pg/mL, p = 0.001) as determined by chromogenic assay, and TF mRNA expression in isolated MNC was more frequent in UA/NSTEMI than in SA (50% vs. 18.2%; p = 0.017). MoTF expression significantly correlated with the constitutive platelet marker CD42b (r = 0.69, p < 0.001) and the platelet activation marker CD62P (r = 0.47, p = 0.001) on CD14(+)-cells suggesting its association with MPAs in UA/NSTEMI. In addition, MoTF expression correlated with MoTF activity of isolated MNC (r = 0.41, p = 0.01) and plasma levels of the F1.2 prothrombin fragment (r = 0.35, p = 0.02). In conclusion, MoTF and MPAs are elevated in UA/NSTEMI compared with SA. MoTF expression correlates with platelet mass and activity attached to monocytes.

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