Differential Actions of PAR <sub>2</sub> and PAR <sub>1</sub> in Stimulating Human Endothelial Cell Exocytosis and Permeability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endothelial cell proteinase activated receptors (PARs) belong to a family of heterotrimeric G protein-coupled receptors that are implicated in leukocyte accumulation and potentiation of reperfusion injury. We characterized the effect and the signal transduction pathways recruited after stimulation of endothelial PAR2. We used von Willebrand Factor (vWF) release and monolayer permeability to peroxidase to report Weibel-Palade body (WPB) exocytosis and pore formation, respectively. Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were stimulated with the selective PAR2 agonist peptide SLIGRL-NH2 or PAR1 agonist peptide TFLLR-NH2. PAR2 stimulation resulted in WPB exocytosis like PAR1 stimulation but, unlike PAR1, failed to increase monolayer permeability. BAPTA-AM inhibited PAR2-induced exocytosis, indicating a PAR2 calcium-dependent signal in ECs. Moreover, PAR2-like PAR1-stimulated exocytosis requires actin cytoskeleton remodeling, because vWF release is inhibited if the cells were pretreated with Jasplakinolide. Rho-GTPase activity is required for PAR-stimulated exocytosis, because inactivation of this family of actin-regulatory proteins with Clostridium difficile toxin B blocked exocytosis. Expression of dominant-negative mutant Cdc42(17N) inhibited exocytosis whereas neither dominant-negative Rac(17N) expression nor C3 exotoxin treatment affected vWF release. PAR2 stimulated RhoA-GTP weakly compared with the PAR1 agonist. We conclude that both PAR2 and PAR1 elicit WP body exocytosis in a calcium and Cdc42 GTPase-dependent manner. In contrast, the differential effect of PAR1 versus PAR2 activation to increase monolayer permeability correlates with weak RhoA activation by the PAR2 agonist.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".