Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Pancreatic Cancer (Jul 2025)
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

Differences between Type I Autoimmune Inhibitors of Fibrin Stabilization in Two Patients with Severe Hemorrhagic Disorder
S. Lopaciuk
S. Lopaciuk
Published May 1, 1978
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1978;61(5):1196-1203. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI109035.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

Differences between Type I Autoimmune Inhibitors of Fibrin Stabilization in Two Patients with Severe Hemorrhagic Disorder

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Inhibitors of fibrin stabilization of apparently autoimmune origin, found in two severely bleeding unrelated patients (W. G. and G. A.), were compared with regard to their biological target specificities, potencies and immunological characteristics. Both interfered only with the activation of fibrin stabilizing factor (coagulation Factor XIII) and, while totally preventing the conversion of this zymogen to the functional transamidating enzyme, fibrinoligase (Factor XIIIa), they showed very little inhibition toward the enzyme itself. Thus, according to the classification of Lorand concerning biological specificities, both can be characterized as Type I inhibitors of fibrin stabilization. Potencies of the two inhibitors were quite similar when measured in conjunction with the plasma zymogen, but they differed remarkably in tests with platelet Factor 13. The inhibitor of patient W. G. prevented the activation of the zymogen from platelets, but that of G. A. had no effect on the platelet factor. It may therefore be concluded that the inhibitor of W. G. is directed exclusively against the a subunit which is a common constituent of plasma as well as platelet factors. The inhibitor of G. A., however, must be targeted against determinants uniquely characteristic for the ab ensemble of the plasma zymogen including the b subunit. On the basis of this difference in target specificity, the inhibitor of W. G. is designated as Type I-1 and that of G. A. as Type I-2.

Authors

S. Lopaciuk

×

Usage data is cumulative from July 2024 through July 2025.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 108 2
PDF 60 6
Scanned page 447 3
Citation downloads 48 0
Totals 663 11
Total Views 674
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts