4.2 Article

Haptoglobin Phenotype May Alter Endothelial Progenitor Cell Cluster Formation in Cerebral Small Vessel Disease

期刊

CURRENT NEUROVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 32-41

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/156720209787466082

关键词

Lacunar infarct; leukoaraiosis; white matter lesions; endothelial progenitor cells; haptoglobin phenotypes

资金

  1. Netherlands Heart Foundation [2005B022]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cerebral small vessel disease results in silent ischemic lesions (SIL) among which is leukoaraiosis. In this process, endothelial damage is probably involved. Endothelial progenitor cells (EPC), are involved in endothelial repair. By restoring the damaged endothelium, EPC could mitigate SIL and cerebral small vessel disease. Haptoglobin 1-1, one of three phenotypes of haptoglobin, relates to SIL and may therefore attenuate the endothelial repair by EPC. Our aim was to quantify EPC number and function and to assess haptoglobin phenotype and its effect on EPC function in patients with a high prevalence of SIL: lacunar stroke patients. We assessed EPC In 42 lacunar stroke patients and 18 controls by flow cytometry and culture with fetal calf serum, patient and control serum. We determined haptoglobin phenotype and cultured EPC with the three different haptoglobin phenotypes. We found that EPC cluster counts were lower in patients (96.9 clusters/ well +/- 83.4 (mean +/- SD)), especially in those with SIL (85.0 +/- 64.3), than in controls (174.4 +/- 112.2). Cluster formation was inhibited by patient serum, especially by SIL patient serum, but not by control serum. Patients with haptoglobin 1-1 had less clusters in culture, and when haptoglobin 1-1 was added to EPC cultures, cluster numbers were lower than with the other haptoglobin phenotypes. We conclude that lacunar stroke patients, especially those with SIL, have impaired EPC cluster formation, which may point at decreased endothelial repair potential. The haptoglobin 1-1 phenotype is likely a causative factor in this impairment.

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

4.2
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