Figure 4
Figure 4. Effects of antibodies against different adhesion molecules on adhesion of PV RBCs to HUVECs under static conditions. (A) When incubated with HUVECs, neither anti-Lu/BCAM anti-α2, anti-α5, α6, β1, αvβ3 integrins, nor anti-RAGE antibodies modified adhesion of RBCs (n = 10). In contrast, anti-α5 chain laminin and to a lesser extent anti-α3 integrins significantly reduced adhesion (**P < .01; *P < .05; n = 10). (B) Monoclonal or polyclonal anti-Lu/BCAM incubated with RBCs inhibited the adhesion of HUVECs measured in static conditions (**P < .01; *:P < .05, respectively; n = 10), while anti-ICAM-4 or control mAb anti-CD59 had no significant effect on adhesion (n = 5). Bars denote SEM.

Effects of antibodies against different adhesion molecules on adhesion of PV RBCs to HUVECs under static conditions. (A) When incubated with HUVECs, neither anti-Lu/BCAM anti-α2, anti-α5, α6, β1, αvβ3 integrins, nor anti-RAGE antibodies modified adhesion of RBCs (n = 10). In contrast, anti-α5 chain laminin and to a lesser extent anti-α3 integrins significantly reduced adhesion (**P < .01; *P < .05; n = 10). (B) Monoclonal or polyclonal anti-Lu/BCAM incubated with RBCs inhibited the adhesion of HUVECs measured in static conditions (**P < .01; *:P < .05, respectively; n = 10), while anti-ICAM-4 or control mAb anti-CD59 had no significant effect on adhesion (n = 5). Bars denote SEM.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal