4.6 Article

Pro-apoptotic low-density lipoprotein subfractions in type II diabetes

Journal

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
Volume 193, Issue 2, Pages 283-291

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2006.08.059

Keywords

electronegative LDL; atherosclerosis; diabetes; apoptosis; fatty acids; lipoprotein phospholipase A2

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-56865, HL63364, HL-30914] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM44263] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test the hypothesis that differences in subtractions of circulating lipoproteins between diabetic and non-diabetic subjects exist and might contribute to the increased risk for atherosclerosis in type II diabetics. Methods and results: LDL isolated from diabetic (D) and control subjects (N) were separated by FPLC into five subtractions (L1-L5). The fractional distributions of N- and D-LDL were not different, but the most strongly retained subtractions of D-LDL (D-L5) were markedly more pro-apoptotic to bovine aortic endothelial cells in vitro than were the other subfractions in D- or N-LDL. D-L5 induced time- and concentration-dependent apoptosis that was inhibited by z-VAD-fmk. The most electronegative D-LDL subfractions contained substantial amounts of apoproteins AI, E and CIII, higher concentrations of non-esterified fatty acids and LpPLA2, and lower trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid (TNBSA) reactivities. Electronegative subtractions of D-LDL exhibited longer lag times and lower net increases in absorbance at 234 nm with Cu-catalyzed oxidation in vitro. Conclusions: The toxicities of electronegative subtractions of LDL from diabetic subjects to endothelial cells in vitro may be pivotal to vascular complications of diabetes in vivo, but the specific molecular alterations responsible for the toxicities of these subfractions of diabetic LDL are not known. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available