Comparative Analysis of Platelet Isolation Techniques for the In Vivo Study of the Microcirculation

• Published in: Microcirculation (New York, N.Y. 1994) N.Y. 1994), 2003-04, Vol.10 (2), p.143-152
• Main Authors: Vollmar, Brigitte, Slotta, Jan E., Nickels, Ruth M., Wenzel, Ernst, Menger, Michael D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Blood Platelets - cytology; Cell Separation - methods; Cell Separation - standards; Centrifugation, Density Gradient - methods; Chromatography, Agarose - methods; density gradient centrifugation; Endothelium, Vascular - cytology; Hepatic Veins - cytology; Humans; intravital microscopy; ischemia-reperfusion; Microcirculation - cytology; P-selectin; Peptide Fragments - pharmacology; Platelet Activation; Platelet Adhesiveness; platelet-endothelial cell interaction; platelet-leukocyte interaction; Sepharose column isolation
• ISSN: 1073-9688; 1549-8719
• DOI: 10.1038/sj.mn.7800179

ABSTRACT Objective: In vitro and in vivo studies using isolated platelets require that the cells used for testing are not activated by the isolation procedure. This ensures that the effects measured by the test are the result of the environment or the applied stimulus, but is not an artifact resulting from activation by cell isolation. Methods: Herein, we analyzed two different platelet isolation procedures (i.e., a Sepharose column versus density gradient centrifugation) with special emphasis on cell activation, including flow cytometric analysis of P‐selectin expression, functional quantification of mechanical platelet retention, light microscopic assessment of platelet aggregation, and fluorescence microscopic determination of in vivo rat liver platelet–endothelium cell interaction. Results: Under resting conditions, Sepharose column‐isolated platelets showed a negligible fraction of only 2.7 ± 3.3% cells (mean ± SEM) with P‐selectin expression, and an appropriate response (i.e., a 33‐fold increase) upon activation with thrombin receptor‐activating peptide (TRAP). In contrast, density gradient centrifugation resulted in P‐selectin expression under resting conditions of ∼50% of the isolated cells and only a 1.6‐fold increase on further TRAP stimulation. In addition, density gradient‐isolated platelets, but not Sepharose column‐isolated platelets, showed increased mechanical retention and agglutination/aggregation in vitro, as well as pronounced adhesion to hepatic venular endothelium in vivo. Interestingly, density gradient‐isolated platelets additionally induced in vivo an increase of colocalization of platelets with adherent leukocytes, indicating a generalized microvascular inflammatory response that is comparable to that observed after a 60‐minute ischemia/30‐minute reperfusion insult. Conclusion: Density gradient centrifugation‐isolated platelets, but not Sepharose column‐isolated platelets, are activated already under resting conditions and induce in vivo a platelet–leukocyte–endothelial cell‐associated inflammatory response. Thus, we propose that the method of platelet isolation using the Sepharose column is superior to the density gradient centrifugation technique and might therefore be preferred for in vitro and in vivo assays to study platelet function.