Ultrastructure of rat aortic grafts
Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké Médium print
Typ dokumentu srovnávací studie, časopisecké články
PubMed
10997138
DOI
10.1007/bf02816262
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- aorta abdominalis transplantace ultrastruktura MeSH
- elektronová mikroskopie MeSH
- homologní transplantace MeSH
- krysa rodu Rattus MeSH
- potkani inbrední BN MeSH
- potkani inbrední LEW MeSH
- transplantace izogenní MeSH
- transplantáty * MeSH
- tunica intima ultrastruktura MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Check Tag
- krysa rodu Rattus MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- zvířata MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
This study compares the ultrastructure of three syngeneic and three allogeneic grafts of rat abdominal aorta (Lewis to Lewis and BN to Lewis, respectively); the tissue was sampled three months after transplantation (TPL). The endothelial plate was preserved and mononuclear cell adherence was absent. In syngeneic grafts the intima and media remained close to normal with well-preserved smooth muscle cells (SMC). The thickened allograft neointima consisted of elongated spindle cells and rich intercellular matrix. The cells were typical SMC without apparent signs of dystrophy or degeneration. On the other hand, most SMC of the media showed complete disruption and disorganization of membrane and organelles suggestive of accomplished necrosis. However, the framework of elastic lamellae was preserved, without apparent ruptures or lytic changes. Intraintimal migration of medial SMC was not recorded while some cytoplasmic strips were seen to extend across the outer elastic lamella (possible rudimentary outgrowth of SMC?). Lymphocytes and histiomonocytic cells (macrophages) were found in the adventitia but not in the destroyed media. Thus electron microscopy elucidated the histological picture of "anuclear allograft media" and confirmed the predominance of SMC in the thickened neointima. However, signs of the mediointimal SMC invasion were not apparent three months post TPL.
Zobrazit více v PubMed
Transplantation. 1996 Jun 27;61(12):1695-9 PubMed
Transplantation. 1994 Dec 15;58(11):1258-63 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1996 Dec;28(6 Suppl 1):7-10 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1997 Sep;29(6):2531-2 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1997 Feb-Mar;29(1-2):1517-9 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Nov;31(7A):9S-13S PubMed
Pathol Res Pract. 1994 Oct;190(9-10):891-4 PubMed
Clin Nephrol. 1986;25 Suppl 1:S193-8 PubMed
Transplantation. 1999 Mar 27;67(6):897-903 PubMed
Transplantation. 1998 Jan 15;65(1):42-6 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Feb-Mar;31(1-2):863-4 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1998 Aug;30(5):2402-6 PubMed
Lab Invest. 1999 Nov;79(11):1369-75 PubMed
Folia Microbiol (Praha). 1999;44(3):339-53 PubMed
Am J Pathol. 1998 Feb;152(2):359-65 PubMed
Transplantation. 1999 Dec 15;68(11):1701-7 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1995 Feb;27(1):549 PubMed
Lab Invest. 1999 Aug;79(8):935-44 PubMed
J Pathol. 1997 Feb;181(2):247-50 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1995 Jun;27(3):2036-9 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1998 Jun;30(4):1590-4 PubMed
J Vasc Surg. 1988 Jan;7(1):82-92 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1996 Dec;28(6):3225-6 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Sep;31(6):2219-20 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1998 Jun;30(4):1585-9 PubMed
Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol. 1991;418(2):129-41 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Feb-Mar;31(1-2):810-1 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Feb-Mar;31(1-2):1295-7 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1989 Aug;21(4):3667-9 PubMed
Transplantation. 1997 Oct 27;64(8):1192-7 PubMed
Transplantation. 1995 Feb 15;59(3):313-8 PubMed
Transplantation. 1994 Dec 15;58(11):1195-8 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 May;31(3B Suppl):22S-24S PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Jun;31(4):1796-8 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1999 Nov;31(7):2719-23 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1993 Apr;25(2):2031-7 PubMed
Transplant Proc. 1998 Dec;30(8):3989-90 PubMed
Arterioscler Thromb. 1991 May-Jun;11(3):671-80 PubMed
