Why the study?
Although platelets are often considered one-time responsive cells, whether their ability to sequentially respond depends on the time and type of repeated agonist application remained unknown.
Does GPVI stimulation compared to PAR stimulation induce a more persistent priming activation state in platelets?
Does GPVI stimulation compared to PAR stimulation induce a more persistent priming activation state in platelets?
Platelets exhibit a priming memory after activation, with GPVI stimulation inducing a more persistent activation state than PAR stimulation, which may have implications for antiplatelet therapy timing and efficacy.
GPVI yields more persistent platelet priming than PAR in this animal model; hypothesis-generating for antiplatelet timing.
Platelets can respond to multiple antagonists and agonists, implying that their activation state is a consequence of past exposure to these substances. While platelets are often considered as one-time responsive cells, they likely can respond to sequential application of inhibitors and stimuli. We hypothesized that the ability of platelets to sequentially respond depends on the time and type of repeated agonist application. The present proof-of-concept data show that iloprost (cAMP elevation), tirofiban (integrin αIIbβ3 blocker) and Syk kinase inhibition subacutely modulated platelet aggregation, i.e. halted this process even when applied after agonist. In comparison to thrombin-activated receptor (PAR) stimulation, glycoprotein VI (GPVI) stimulation was less sensitive to time-dependent blockage of aggregation, with Syk inhibition as an exception. Furthermore, cytosolic Ca2+ measurements indicated that, when compared to PAR, prior GPVI stimulation induced a more persistent, priming activation state of platelets that influenced the response to a next agent. Overall, these data point to an unexpected priming memory of activated platelets in subacutely responding to another inhibitor or stimulus, with a higher versatility and faster offset after PAR stimulation than after GPVI stimulation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zou et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: