To better understand how heparin structure affects its activity the relationships between the functional domains for inhibitor binding and charge density were investigated to determine how these domains affect heparin-mediated thrombin inhibition by two different heparin-dependent protease inhibitors, antithrombin (AT) and heparin cofactor II (HC II). A series of heparins, fractionated systematically by charge density, was further fractionated on antithrombin agarose to isolate more homogeneous subfractions that were either inactive or highly active with respect to thrombin inhibition by AT. With AT, the activities of the AT-active subfractions increased sharply with heparin charge density, while those with little or no affinity for AT were virtually inactive. In contrast, with HC II inhibitor, the activities of the heparins depended only upon their charge densities and were independent of AT affinity. At any given charge density, the heparin before fractionation by AT affinity and the fractions that were highly active and inactive with AT were all equally active with HC II. The two inhibitors also differed in their reactivity with heparan sulfate and dermatan sulfate. A charge-density effect with the subfractions having similar high affinity for AT demonstrates that charge density represents a heparin functional domain that is independent of the AT-binding domain. The behavior of the AT-inactive heparins, being fully active with HC II, demonstrates the functional domain necessary for AT binding is not needed to produce HC II activity.
R E Hurst, M C Poon, M J Griffith
Usage data is cumulative from February 2025 through February 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 238 | 19 |
| 89 | 9 | |
| Scanned page | 161 | 4 |
| Citation downloads | 94 | 0 |
| Totals | 582 | 32 |
| Total Views | 614 | |
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.