4.2 Article

Loss of Cardioprotection With Ischemic Preconditioning in Aging Hearts: Role of Sirtuin 1?

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1074248412458723

关键词

age; Sirtuin 1; ischemic preconditioning; cardioprotection

资金

  1. University of Cape Town
  2. Medical Research Council of South Africa
  3. National Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effectiveness of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) to protect the heart against ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) declines with age. The deacetylase protein sirtuin 1 (Sirt 1) confers myriad functions including longevity and cardioprotection against IRI. As such, Sirt 1 may be a potential candidate to explain the protective effect of IPC. We aim to explore the role of Sirt 1 in the loss of the cardioprotective effect of IPC with age. Isolated hearts from young (9 weeks) and older (12-18 months) Long-Evans rats were subjected to 30 minutes of global ischemia and 60 minutes of reperfusion. Preconditioning stimuli were applied with either 2 cycles of 5-minute ischemia/reperfusion or with the potent Sirt 1 agonist resveratrol (RSV, 10 mu mol/L) for 15 minutes followed by a 10-minute washout before the sustained ischemia. Both IPC and RSV significantly enhanced the functional recovery of young hearts by 168% (P < .001 vs control) and 65% (P < .01 vs control), respectively, and concomitantly reduced the infarct size by 65% and 45%, but the effect was blunted in older hearts. Administration of the selective Sirt 1 inhibitor III to young hearts did not alter the protective effect of IPC. Following ischemia/reperfusion, higher Sirt 1 deacetylase activity was detected in older hearts compared to young hearts (0.48 +/- 0.13 arbitrary units [AU] vs 0.17 +/- 0.03 AU, P < .01) and IPC did not alter Sirt 1 deacetylase activity. In conclusion, although Sirt 1 deacetylase activity is increased with age during ischemia/reperfusion, our data suggest that the loss of the cardioprotective effect of IPC in older animals is likely to be independent of Sirt 1.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据