4.8 Article

A noninhibitory mutant of the caveolin-1 scaffolding domain enhances eNOS-derived NO synthesis and vasodilation in mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 121, 期 9, 页码 3747-3755

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/JCI44778

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 HL64793, R01 HL61371, R01 HL081190, HL096670, P01 HL70295]
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)
  3. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MSFHR)
  4. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  5. British Columbia Knowledge Development Fund
  6. National Kidney Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aberrant regulation of eNOS and associated NO release are directly linked with various vascular diseases. Caveolin-1 (Cav-1), the main coat protein of caveolae, is highly expressed in endothelial cells. Its scaffolding domain serves as an endogenous negative regulator of eNOS function. Structure-function analysis of Cav-1 has shown that phenylalanine 92 (F92) is critical for the inhibitory actions of Cav-1 toward eNOS. Herein, we show that F92A-Cav-1 and a mutant cell-permeable scaffolding domain peptide called Cavnoxin can increase basal NO release in eNOS-expressing cells. Cavnoxin reduced vascular tone ex vivo and lowered blood pressure in normal mice. In contrast, similar experiments performed with eNOS- or Cav-1-deficient mice showed that the vasodilatory effect of Cavnoxin is abolished in the absence of these gene products, which indicates a high level of eNOS/Cav-1 specificity. Mechanistically, biochemical assays indicated that noninhibitory F92A-Cav-1 and Cavnoxin specifically disrupted the inhibitory actions of endogenous Cav-1 toward eNOS and thereby enhanced basal NO release. Collectively, these data raise the possibility of studying the inhibitory influence of Cav-1 on eNOS without interfering with the other actions of endogenous Cav-1. They also suggest a therapeutic application for regulating the eNOS/Cav-1 interaction in diseases characterized by decreased NO release.

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

4.8
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