Key result
Mechanically prepared ECM exposes a less thrombogenic surface than chemical preparation, cutting platelet coverage ~60%.
Why the study?
Does the method of preparation of endothelial cell extracellular matrixes influence platelet adhesion?
Population
Extracellular matrixes (ECMs) produced by cultured human umbilical endothelial cells (ECs)
Comparison
Mechanical preparation of ECM vs Chemical preparation of ECM
Design
Preclinical
Authors
Loading...
Mechanical isolation reduces in vitro matrix thrombogenicity; leaves open optimal preparation for reproducible endothelial thrombosis models.
Does the method of preparation of endothelial cell extracellular matrixes influence platelet adhesion?
Absolute Event Rate: 20% vs 50%
The method of preparing extracellular matrixes from cultured endothelial cells significantly alters their thrombogenic properties and platelet adhesion, which must be considered in in vitro thrombosis models.
Aznar-Salatti et al. (1991) studied this question. Mechanical preparation of extracellular matrixes vs. Chemical preparation of extracellular matrixes was evaluated on Platelet adhesion (platelet-covered surface). Mechanically prepared extracellular matrixes exposed a less thrombogenic surface compared with chemically prepared matrixes, with a platelet-covered surface of 20% versus 50%, respectively.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: