| Literature DB >> 32351399 |
Dan Lazari1, Joames Kauffimann Freitas Leal1, Roland Brock1, Giel Bosman1.
Abstract
The molecular organization of the membrane of the red blood cell controls cell morphology and function and is thereby a main determinant of red blood cell homeostasis in the circulation. The role of membrane organization is prominently reflected in red blood cell deformation and aggregation. However, there is little knowledge on whether they are controlled by the same membrane property and if so, to what extent. To address the potential interdependence of these two parameters, we measured deformation and aggregation in a variety of physiological as well as pathological conditions. As a first step, we correlated a number of deformability and aggregation parameters in red blood cells from healthy donors, which we obtained in the course of our studies on red blood cell homeostasis in health and disease. This analysis yielded some statistically significant correlations. Also, we found that most of these correlations were absent in misshapen red blood cells that have an inborn defect in the interaction between the membrane and the cytoskeleton. The observations suggest that deformability and aggregation share at least one common, membrane-related molecular mechanism. Together with data obtained after treatment with various agents known to affect membrane organization in vitro, our findings suggest that a phosphorylation-controlled interaction between the cytoskeleton and the integral membrane protein band 3 is part of the membrane-centered mechanism that plays a role in deformability as well as aggregation.Entities:
Keywords: aggregation; aging; deformability; membrane; red blood cell
Year: 2020 PMID: 32351399 PMCID: PMC7174766 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.00288
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Determination of the correlation between deformability and aggregation.
| EImax vs. SS1/2 | –0.7085 | 0.502 | <0.0001 | 140 |
| AI vs. t1/2 | –0.8662 | 0.7504 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| EImax vs. AI | 0.2126 | 0.0452 | 0.0192 | 121 |
| EImax vs. AMP | –0.119 | 0.01415 | 0.1937 | 121 |
| EImax vs. t1/2 | –0.1705 | 0.02906 | 0.0616 | 121 |
| SS1/2 vs. AI | –0.2607 | 0.06794 | 0.0039 | 121 |
| SS1/2 vs. AMP | 0.3482 | 0.1212 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| SS1/2 vs. t1/2 | 0.2511 | 0.06303 | 0.0055 | 121 |
| Tr vs. EImax | 0.5198 | 0.2702 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| Tr vs. AI | 0.4282 | 0.1834 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| Tr vs. AMP | –0.4547 | 0.2067 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| Tr vs. t1/2 | –0.3129 | 0.09791 | 0.0005 | 121 |
| Tr vs. SS1/2 | –0.5874 | 0.3451 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| Ratio [SS1/2/EImax] vs. AI | –0.2592 | 0.06716 | 0.0041 | 121 |
| Ratio vs. AMP | 0.2647 | 0.07006 | 0.0033 | 121 |
| Ratio vs. t1/2 | 0.2392 | 0.05723 | 0.0082 | 121 |
| Ratio vs. Tr | –0.5918 | 0.3502 | <0.0001 | 121 |
| Ratio vs. EImax | –0.8566 | 0.7338 | <0.0001 | 140 |
| Ratio vs. SS1/2 | 0.9658 | 0.9328 | <0.0001 | 140 |
FIGURE 1Brightfield microscopy of RBCs and RBC aggregates. Microscopic analyses of RBCs and aggregates were performed by a ZOE Fluorescent Cell Imager (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, United States). Packed RBCs (1 μL) were resuspended in 199 μL of non-aggregating solution (Ringer) and transferred to an ibidi μ-slide. For aggregation analysis, 2.5 μL of packed RBCs were resuspended in 247.5 μL of plasma. The sample was transferred to an ibidi μ-slide and left for 120 s to allow the RBCs to aggregate. (A) control RBCs; (B) aggregates of control RBCs; (C) RBCs from a neuroacanthocytosis patient; (D) RBCs of a neuroacanthocytosis patient after aggregation; (E,F), control RBCs after treatment with orthovanadate before (E) and after aggregation (F); (G,H) control RBCs after treatment with DIDS before (G) and after aggregation (H). The arrows indicate the echinocytes, the large arrowheads point to misshapen RBCs. Treatments were performed as described before (Cluitmans et al., 2012). The length of the bar is 25 μm. Blood was obtained with informed consent and the studies were carried out as described before (De Franceschi et al., 2011; Dinkla et al., 2012; Cluitmans et al., 2015, 2016), in accordance with the CCMO guidelines of the Medical Ethical Committee of the Radboud University Medical Center (file numbers 2007-148, 2013-381, 2018-4421).
Determination of the correlations between deformability and aggregation parameters of red blood cells from neuroacanthocytosis patients.
| EIimax vs. SS1/2 | –0.5878 | 0.3455 | 0.0444 | 12 |
| AI vs. t1/2 | –0.9539 | 0.9099 | <0.0001 | 10 |
| EImax vs. AI | 0.1266 | 0.01603 | 0.7274 | 10 |
| EImax vs. AMP | 0.3614 | 0.1306 | 0.3048 | 10 |
| EImax vs. t1/2 | –0.03048 | 0.0009291 | 0.9334 | 10 |
| SS1/2 vs. AI | –0.4562 | 0.2081 | 0.1851 | 10 |
| SS1/2 vs. AMP | –0.222 | 0.04928 | 0.5376 | 10 |
| SS1/2 vs. t1/2 | 0.4941 | 0.2442 | 0.1466 | 10 |
| Tr vs. EImax | 0.6559 | 0.4302 | 0.0395 | 10 |
| Tr vs. AI | 0.5728 | 0.3281 | 0.0835 | 10 |
| Tr vs. AMP | 0.8512 | 0.7246 | 0.0018 | 10 |
| Tr vs. t1/2 | –0.4576 | 0.2094 | 0.1836 | 10 |
| Tr vs. SS1/2 | –0.4139 | 0.1713 | 0.2344 | 10 |
| Ratio [SS1/2/EImax] vs. AI | –0.3864 | 0.1493 | 0.27 | 10 |
| Ratio vs. AMP | –0.2781 | 0.07733 | 0.4366 | 10 |
| Ratio vs. t1/2 | 0.3596 | 0.1293 | 0.3074 | 10 |
| Ratio vs. Tr | –0.5511 | 0.3037 | 0.0987 | 10 |
| Ratio vs. EImax | –0.8103 | 0.6566 | 0.0014 | 12 |
| Ratio vs. SS1/2 | 0.9449 | 0.8928 | <0.0001 | 12 |