Mechanisms by Which Soluble Endothelial Cell Protein C Receptor Modulates Protein C and Activated Protein C Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The endothelial cell protein C receptor (EPCR) functions as an important regulator of the protein C anticoagulant pathway by binding protein C and enhancing activation by the thrombin-thrombomodulin complex. EPCR binds to both protein C and activated protein C (APC) with high affinity. A soluble form of EPCR (sEPCR) circulates in plasma and inhibits APC anticoagulant activity. In this study, we investigate the mechanisms by which sEPCR modulates APC function. Soluble EPCR inhibited the inactivation of factor Va by APC only in the presence of phospholipid vesicles. By using flow cytometric analysis in the presence of 3 mM CaCl(2) and 0. 6 mM MgCl(2), sEPCR inhibited the binding of protein C and APC to phospholipid vesicles (K(i) = 40 +/- 7 and 33 +/- 4 nM, respectively). Without MgCl(2), the K(i) values increased approximately 4-fold. Double label flow cytometric analysis using fluorescein-APC and Texas Red-sEPCR indicated that the APC.sEPCR complex does not interact with phospholipid vesicles. By using surface plasmon resonance, we found that sEPCR also inhibited binding of protein C to phospholipid in a dose-dependent fashion (K(i) = 32 nM). To explore the possibility that sEPCR evokes structural changes in APC, fluorescence spectroscopy studies were performed to monitor sEPCR/Fl-APC interactions. sEPCR binds saturably to Fl-APC (K(d) = 27 +/- 13 nM) with a maximum decrease in Fl-APC fluorescence of 10.8 +/- 0.6%. sEPCR also stimulated the amidolytic activity of APC toward synthetic substrates. We conclude that sEPCR binding to APC blocks phospholipid interaction and alters the active site of APC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".