A single-chain 55,000-mol wt form of urokinase (UK), similar to that previously isolated from urine, was purified from a transformed kidney cell culture medium and characterized; and its fibrinolytic properties were evaluated. The preparation immunoprecipitated with UK antiserum, had a low intrinsic amidolytic activity that was 0.1% of its active derivative, and resisted diisopropyl fluorophosphate treatment and inactivation by plasma inhibitors. The single-chain UK was therefore designated pro-UK. In the presence of plasmin and during clot lysis, activation by conversion to two-chain, 55,000-mol wt UK (TC-UK) was demonstrated. This did not occur during blood clotting nor on incubation with purified thrombin. Clot lysis in plasma consistently occurred in 2-5 h with 50-100 IU per ml of pro-UK, whereas comparable lysis was inconsistently achieved by 500-1,000 IU of UK. Pro-UK, in sharp contrast to UK, caused no fibrinogen degradation at fibrinolytic concentrations. In the absence of a clot, pro-UK in plasma was stable for more than 2 d. When a clot was added after incubation (37 degrees C) for 50 h, activation to full lytic activity took place. The findings in vivo were comparable but the rapid clearance of pro-UK required that it be given by a constant infusion despite its plasma stability. In rabbits, a UK-resistant species, pro-UK was significantly (P less than 0.001) more efficacious than TC-UK but neither induced significant fibrinogen degradation. In dogs, a more sensitive species, the high specificity of thrombolysis by pro-UK contrasted with the defibrinogenation and uncontrollable bleeding that accompanied thrombolysis by UK. It was concluded that clot lysis by pro-UK is more effective and specific than UK. The advantage of pro-UK is in the limitation of its activation to the site of a clot. This can be explained by an activation mechanism that is dependent, under physiological conditions, on fibrin-stabilized plasmin.
V Gurewich, R Pannell, S Louie, P Kelley, R L Suddith, R Greenlee
The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.