Interactions of heparin and a covalently-linked antithrombin-heparin complex with components of the fibrinolytic system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unfractionated heparin (UFH) is used as an adjunct during thrombolytic therapy. However, its use is associated with limitations, such as the inability to inhibit surface bound coagulation factors. We have developed a covalent conjugate of antithrombin (AT) and heparin (ATH) with superior anticoagulant properties compared with UFH. Advantages of ATH include enhanced inhibition of surface-bound coagulation enzymes and the ability to reduce the overall size and mass of clots in vivo. The interactions of UFH or ATH with the components of the fibrinolytic pathway are not well understood. Our study utilised discontinuous second order rate constant (k₂) assays to compare the rates of inhibition of free and fibrin-associated plasmin by AT+UFH vs ATH. Additionally, we evaluated the effects of AT+UFH and ATH on plasmin generation in the presence of fibrin. The k₂ values for inhibition of plasmin were 5.74 ± 0.28 x 10⁶ M⁻¹ min⁻¹ and 6.39 ± 0.59 x 10⁶ M⁻¹ min⁻¹ for AT+UFH and ATH, respectively. In the presence of fibrin, the k₂ values decreased to 1.45 ± 0.10 x 10⁶ M⁻¹ min⁻¹ and 3.07 ± 0.19 x 10⁶ M⁻¹ min⁻¹ for AT+UFH and ATH, respectively. Therefore, protection of plasmin by fibrin was observed for both inhibitors; however, ATH demonstrated superior inhibition of fibrin-associated plasmin. Rates of plasmin generation were also decreased by both inhibitors, with ATH causing the greatest reduction (approx. 38-fold). Nonetheless, rates of plasmin inhibition were 2-3 orders of magnitude lower than for thrombin, and in a plasma-based clot lysis assay ATH significantly inhibited clot formation but had little impact on clot lysis. Cumulatively, these data may indicate that, relative to coagulant enzymes, the fibrinolytic system is spared from inhibition by both AT+UFH and ATH, limiting reduction in fibrinolytic potential during anticoagulant therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".