4.6 Article

Nicotinic acid and DP1 blockade: studies in mouse models of atherosclerosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 177-188

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M031344

关键词

dyslipidemia; DP1 antagonist; atherosclerosis model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of nicotinic acid to treat dyslipidemia is limited by induction of a flushing response, mediated in part by the interaction of prostaglandin D-2 (PGD(2)) with its G-protein coupled receptor, DP1 (Ptgdr). The impact of DP1 blockade (genetic or pharmacologic) was assessed in experimental murine models of atherosclerosis. In Ptgdr(-/-) ApoE(-/-) mice versus ApoE(-/-) mice, both fed a high-fat diet, aortic cholesterol content was modestly higher (1.3- to 1.5-fold, P < 0.05) in Ptgdr(-/-) ApoE(-/-) mice at 16 and 24 weeks of age, but not at 32 weeks. In multiple ApoE(-/-) mouse studies, a DP1-specific antagonist, L-655, generally had a neutral to beneficial effect on aortic lipids in the presence or absence of nicotinic acid treatment. In a separate study, a modest increase in some atherosclerotic measures was observed with L-655 treatment in Ldlr(-/-) mice fed a high-fat diet for 8 weeks; however, this effect was not sustained for 16 or 24 weeks. In the same study, treatment with nicotinic acid alone generally decreased plasma and/or aortic lipids, and addition of L-655 did not negate those beneficial effects. jlr These studies demonstrate that inhibition of DP1, with or without nicotinic acid treatment, does not lead to consistent or sustained effects on plaque burden in mouse atherosclerotic models.-Strack, A. M., E. Carballo-Jane, S-p. Wang, J. Xue, X. Ping, L. A. McNamara, A. Thankappan, O. Price, M. Wolff, T. J. Wu, D. Kawka, M. Mariano, C. Burton, C. H. Chang, J. Chen, J. Menke, S. Luell, E. I. Zycband, X. Tong, R. Raubertas, C. P. Sparrow, B. Hubbard, J. Woods, G. O'Neill, M. G. Waters, and A. Sitlani. Nicotinic acid and DP1 blockade: studies in mouse models of atherosclerosis. J. Lipid Res. 2013. 54: 177-188.

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

4.6
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