Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-b4m5d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T04:51:18.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complement Activation Resulting from Blood-Material Interactions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2011

Richart J. Johnson  and
Dennis E. Chenoweth
Richart J. Johnson
Affiliation:
Baxter Healthcare Corporation, P.O. Box 490, Round Lake, IL 60073
Dennis E. Chenoweth
Affiliation:
Baxter Healthcare Corporation, P.O. Box 490, Round Lake, IL 60073
Get access

Abstract

Recently there has been a growing awareness of the importance of the interactions of the human complement system with biomaterials which largely stems from the understanding that complement-materials interactions may result in the production of inflammatory mediators, termed C3a and C5a anaphylatoxins, that can produce significant pathopysiologic alterations in the exposed patient. This presentation will review studies of complement activation produced by various hemodialysis membranes. our current data suggests that hemodialysis membranes may be roughly divided into three categories. The first type of membrane displays a high complement-activating potential as judged by measurements of C3a antigen levels produced during dialysis. These membranes also liberate sufficient quantities of C5a to induce both significant granulocytopenia and cardiopulmonary effects. The second group of membranes exhibits a moderate capacity to activate complement, with the amount of C3a antigen produced by these devices being about half that seen with the highly activating dialyzers. Dialyzers in this intermediate group produce only enough C5a to provoke a modest degree of leukopenia and they generally fail to induce cardiopulmonary manifestations. The third type of device fails to produce significant amounts of either free C3a or C5a and does not produce significant granulocytopenia. Factors that could affect the propensity of a material to activate complement include the density and type of surface nucleophiles, and the presence of surface dcarge which may facilitate the interaction of regulatory components and the adsorbtion of both active and bystander proteins.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 110: Symposium M – Biomedical Materials and Devices , 1987 , 747
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Craddock, P.R., Fehr, J., Dalmasso, A.P., Brigham, K.L. and Jacob, H.S., J. Clin. Invest. 59, 879 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Pangburn, M.K. in Immunobiology of the Complement System, edited by Ross, G.D. (Academic Press, New York, 1986), p. 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Tomas, M.L., Janatova, J., Gray, W.R. and Tack, B.F., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 79, 1054 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Kazatchkine, M.D. and Nydegger, U.E., Prog. Allergy, Volume 30 (Karger, Basel, 1982) p. 193.Google Scholar
5. Hugli, T.E. and Chenoweth, D.E. in Immunoassays-clincal laboratory technicies for the 1980s, edited by Nakamura, R.M., Dito, W.R. and Tucker, E.J. (Alan R. Liss Publishers, New York) p. 443.Google Scholar
6. Chenoweth, D.E. and Hugli, T.E., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 75, 3943 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Van Epps, D.E. and Chenoweth, D.E., J. Immunol. 132, 2862 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Jacob, H.S., Craddock, P.R., Hammerschmidt, D.E. and Moldow, C.H., New Eng. J. Med. 302, 789 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Webster, R.O., Hong, S.R., Johnston, R.B. Jr and Henson, P.M., Immunopharmacology, 2, 201 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Sacks, T., Moldow, C.F., Craddock, P.R., Bowers, T.K. and Jacob, H.S., J. Clin. Invest. 61, 1161 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Goodman, M.G., Chenoweth, D.E., and Weigle, W.O., J. Exp. Med. 156, 912 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Dinarello, C.A., Rev. Infect. Dis. 6, 51 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Dinarello, C.A., Contr. Nephrol. 36, 90 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Lewis, S.L., Van Epps, D.E. and Chenoweth, D.E., Clin. Nephrol. 26, 37 (1986).Google Scholar
15. Lundberg, C., Marceau, F. and Hugli, T.E., Amer. J. Path. 128, 471 (1987).Google Scholar
16. Craddock, P.R., Fehr, J., Brigham, K.L., Kronenberg, R.S. and Jacob, H.S., New Eng. J. Med. 296, 769 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Cheung, A.K., LeWinter, M., Chenoweth, D.E., Lew, W.Y.W. and Henderson, L.W., Kidney Int. 29, 799 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Perkowski, S.Z., Havill, A.M., Flynn, J.T. and Gee, M.H., Circ. Res. 53, 574 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Kazatchkine, M.D., Fearon, D.T. and Austen, K.F., J. Immunol. 122, 75 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Pangburn, M.K., Morrison, D.C., Schreiber, R.D. and Muller-Eberhard, H.J., J. Immunol. 124, 977 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Maillet, F. and Kazatchkine, M.D., Immunol. 50, 27 (1983).Google Scholar
22. Ivanovich, P., Chenoweth, D.E., Schmidt, R., Klinkmann, H., Boxer, L.A., Jacob, H.S. and Hamerschmidt, D.E., Kidney Int. 24, 758 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Johnson, R.J. and Chenoweth, D.E., J. Biol. Chem. 260, 7161 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Kazatchkine, M.D., Fearon, D.T., Silbert, J.E. and Austen, F.K., J. Exp. Med. 150, 1202 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar