| Literature DB >> 28190975 |
Efthymios Arvanitidis1, Sergio Bizzarro1, Elena Alvarez Rodriguez1, Bruno G Loos1, Elena A Nicu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Platelets from untreated periodontitis patients are hyper-reactive and form more platelet-leukocyte complexes compared to cells from individuals without periodontitis. It is not known whether the improvement of the periodontal condition achievable by therapy has beneficial effects on the platelet function. We aimed to assess the effects of periodontal therapy on platelet reactivity.Entities:
Keywords: Periodontal treatment; Periodontitis; Platelet reactivity; Platelet-monocyte complexes; Platelet-neutrophil Complexes
Year: 2017 PMID: 28190975 PMCID: PMC5292810 DOI: 10.1186/s12959-016-0125-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thromb J ISSN: 1477-9560
Fig. 1Flow cytometric features of leukocytes, neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes and their complexes with platelets. Panel a is showing all events. The Neutrophils gate is characterized by high side scatter and low CD45 expression, the Monocytes gate is characterized by intermediate side scatter and intermediate CD45 expression, and the Lymphocyte gate is characterized by low side scatter and high CD45 expression. All events within the Neutrophils gate in a were represented in a CD66b and CD61 plot. Events characterized by high expression of both CD66b and CD61 designate the platelet-neutrophil complexes (PNCs, dotted box in b. Similar strategy was employed for the monocytes (using CD14, the platelet-monocyte complexes, PMCs, are in the dotted box in c and lymphocytes (using CD4, the platelet-lymphocyte complexes, PLymCs, are in the dotted box in d. An example of an unstimulated sample (incubated in HEPES buffer) is shown in b, c, and d, whereas flow cytometric analysis of a stimulated sample (incubated in ADP) is shown in e, f, and g
Summary of the study population characteristics (n = 25) at baseline and recall (12 weeks post-therapy)
| Baseline | Recall |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 44.7 ± 9.3 | - | - |
| Gender (male/female) | 11/14 | - | - |
| Ethnicity (Caucasian/non-Caucasian) | 21/4 | - | - |
| Smoking (current/former/never) | 14/5/6 | 8/11/6 | - |
| Packyears | 16.5 ± 13.8 | - | - |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.0 ± 5.1 | 25.3 ± 5.2 | NS |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 95.6 ± 17.2 | 94.8 ± 16.9 | NS |
| Blood pressure (mm Hg) | |||
| Systolic | 124.8 ± 19.4 | 127.2 ± 16.1 | NS |
| Diastolic | 76.1 ± 13.4 | 77.2 ± 11.9 | NS |
| Total cholesterol (mmol/L) | 5.2 ± 0.8 | 4.9 ± 0.9 | NS |
| HDL (mmol/L) | 1.5 ± 0.4 | 1.4 ± 0.5 | NS |
| LDL (mmol/L) | 3.2 ± 0.8 | 2.8 ± 0.7 |
|
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.2 ± 1.0 | 1.4 ± 1.1 | NS |
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | 2.1 ± 2.8 | 2.0 ± 3.9 | NS |
| Fibrinogen (g/L) | 2.9 ± 0.6 | 2.8 ± 0.6 | NS |
| Leukocyte counts (× 109/L) | 6.7 ± 2.0 | 6.6 ± 2.2 | NS |
| Neutrophils | 3.9 ± 1.6 | 3.8 ± 1.9 | NS |
| Lymphocyte counts | 2.0 ± 0.6 | 2.2 ± 1.1 | NS |
| Platelet counts (× 103) | 250.4 ± 66.1 | 246.6 ± 56.6 | NS |
| Number of teeth | 27.6 ± 2.6 | 27.4 ± 2.6 | NS |
| #teeth with > 50% bone loss | 4.4 ± 3.1 | 4.1 ± 3.1 | NS |
| Sites with plaque (%) | 74.6 ± 20.0 | 19.0 ± 13.0 |
|
| Sites with bleeding on probing | 65.9 ± 15.0 | 18.7 ± 9.1 |
|
| Probing Pocket Depth (mm) | 4.0 ± 0.6 | 2.9 ± 0.4 |
|
| Pockets ≥ 5 mm (%) | 32.4 ± 14.5 | 11.7 ± 9.0 |
|
| Clinical Attachment Level (mm) | 4.3 ± 0.9 | 3.6 ± 0.8 |
|
Values are presented as means ± standard deviations or number of subjects
BMI (body mass index), HDL (high density lipoproteins), LDL (low density lipoproteins)
Fig. 2Platelet response to stimulation with ADP or oral bacteria (Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans [Aa], Porphyromonas gingivalis [Pg], Tannerella forsythia [Tf], Streptococcus sanguis [Ss] and Streptococcus mutans [Sm]). The mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of (a) PAC-1 binding, (b) P-selectin (CD62P) and (c) CD63 in response to an agonist was recorded as a measure of reactivity. The data were plotted as fold change in MFI [MFI of individual sample after stimulation/MFI of unstimulated sample in buffer] representing the change in reactivity. Data are presented as means ± standard error of the mean (N = 25). Addition of stimuli induced an increase in platelet surface activation markers when analyzed within each timepoint (P < 0.001 - repeated measures ANOVA). The comparisons between timepoints were analyzed by paired T- test (*P < 0.05, baseline vs. recall)
Fig. 3Formation of platelet-leukocyte complexes in response to stimulation with ADP or oral bacteria (Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans [Aa], Porphyromonas gingivalis [Pg], Tannerella forsythia [Tf], Streptococcus sanguis [Ss] and Streptococcus mutans [Sm]). The number of CD61-positive (equivalent to platelet-conjugated) leukocytes (PLC) was recorded as a percentage of the total population. Data were plotted as fold change [% platelet-bound cells after stimulation/% platelet-bound cells in unstimulated sample in buffer] representing the change in number of complexes formed in response to stimulation with ADP or oral bacteria. Data are presented as means ± standard error of the mean (N = 25). The addition of stimuli induced formation of complexes when analyzed within each timepoint (P < 0.001 in repeated measures ANOVA). The comparisons between timepoints were analyzed by paired T- test (*P < 0.05 baseline vs. recall)
Summary of platelet-neutrophil, platelet-monocyte and platelet-lymphocyte complexes formation in response to stimulation
| Platelet-neutrophil complexes (Fold change over unstimulated) | Platelet-monocyte complexes (Fold change over unstimulated) | Platelet-lymphocyte complexes (Fold change over unstimulated) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Recall |
| Baseline | Recall |
| Baseline | Recall |
| |||
|
| 6.9 ± 7.9 | 8.6 ± 19.3 | 0.468 |
| 13.0 ± 19.4 | 8.4 ± 16.8 | 0.339 |
| 4.7 ± 8.1 | 7.1 ± 10.5 | 0.072 |
|
| 2.1 ± 1.8 | 6.1 ± 17.5 | 0.766 | + | 2.7 ± 2.5 | 1.9 ± 1.3 | 0.265 | + | 7.7 ± 19.2 | 3.9 ± 8.2 | 0.483 |
| + | 9.4 ± 40.1 | 2.4 ± 5.6 | 0.462 | + | 2.1 ± 3.2 | 1.2 ± 1.0 | 0.100 | + | 1.8 ± 2.1 | 2.0 ± 3.0 | 0.535 |
| + | 32.9 ± 56.2 | 14.9 ± 30.5 |
| + | 8.7 ± 8.3 | 7.7 ± 19.6 | 0.072 | + | 11.5 ± 23.2 | 9.3 ± 12.1 | 0.431 |
| + | 51.3 ± 93.4 | 15.4 ± 31.9 |
| + | 13.2 ± 20.1 | 7.0 ± 25.1 |
| + | 4.1 ± 10.6 | 3.9 ± 5.9 | 0.529 |
| + | 1.4 ± 1.4 | 2.7 ± 7.8 | 0.906 | + | 2.2 ± 2.0 | 1.2 ± 1.2 |
| + | 1.4 ± 0.8 | 2.7 ± 3.8 | 0.087 |
Values are presented as means ± standard deviations. The platelet-neutrophil complexes, platelet-monocyte complexes, platelet-lymphocyte complexes were calculated as percentages platelet-positive neutrophils, monocytes or lymphocytes from the total number of neutrophils, monocytes or lymphocytes, respectively. The fold change over unstimulated values represent the ratios between the measured values after stimulation with ADP, Aa, Pg, Tf, Ss or Sm and in the absence of stimulation (cells in buffer). P-values were obtained by paired T-test and the significant values are given in bold
ADP (adenosine diphosphate), Aa (Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans), Pg (Porphyromonas gingivalis), Tf (Tannerella forsythia), Ss (Streptococcus sanguis), Sm (Streptococcus mutans)
Fig. 4Concentration of sP-selectin (N = 24) in citrate plasma at baseline (white bars) and recall (black bars). Data are presented as means ± standard deviation. P-value calculated by paired t- test (***P = 0.0008)