Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16696039›Full record

ArticleClinical molecular pathology1996

Adhesion of platelets to chemotactically responsive and non-responsive neutrophils.

K B Pastakia, N E Brownson, D A Terle, L Harvath

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical molecular pathology, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

K B PastakiaLaboratory of Cellular Hematology, Division of Hematology, Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
N E Brownson
D A Terle
L Harvath
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims-To investigate the heterotypic adhesion of unactivated platelets to chemotactically responsive (migrated) and non-responsive (non-migrated) polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN).Methods-Platelets and PMN were isolated from autologous, normal blood. Migrated and non-migrated PMN were separated after N-formylmethionyl-leucylphenylalanine (FMLP) stimulation. Platelets were labelled with a fluorescent monoclonal antibody directed against CD41 (GPIIb-IIIa). Platelets (3 x 10(8)/ml) and PMN (3 x 10(6)/ml) were incubated together. Heterotypic cell adhesion was measured in isolated PMN and PMN co-incubated with platelets by flow cytometric analysis of platelet marker fluorescence in PMN gated events. Platelet-PMN adhesion was also visualised by fluorescence microscopy.Results-In studies of isolated PMN, contaminating platelets were bound to 16-34% of unstimulated PMN, 7-22% of stimulated PMN, 2-4% of migrated PMN, and 17-24% of non-migrated PMN. When platelets were co-incubated with migrated or non-migrated PMN, 15-78% of PMN bound one or two platelets.Conclusions-Unactivated platelets adhere to isolated PMN in vitro. Fewer unactivated platelets were adhered to migrated PMN than to non-migrated PMN in isolated PMN preparations. These results indicate that platelets adhering to PMN are removed during PMN migration.

Identifiers

PMID16696039
PMCPMC408012
OpenAlexW2016587103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.