4.3 Article

A Sphingosine Kinase Form 2 Knockout Sensitizes Mouse Myocardium to Ischemia/Reoxygenation Injury and Diminishes Responsiveness to Ischemic Preconditioning

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2011/961059

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs
  2. Veterans Health Administration
  3. Office of Research and Development
  4. NIH [1P01 HL068738-01A1, 1RO1 HL090606]
  5. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL090606, P01HL068738] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sphingosine kinase (SphK) exhibits two isoforms, SphK1 and SphK2. Both forms catalyze the synthesis of sphingosine 1-phosphate (S1P), a sphingolipid involved in ischemic preconditioning (IPC). Since the ratio of SphK1 : SphK2 changes dramatically with aging, it is important to assess the role of SphK2 in IR injury and IPC. Langendorff mouse hearts were subjected to IR (30 min equilibration, 50 min global ischemia, and 40 min reperfusion). IPC consisted of 2 min of ischemia and 2 min of reperfusion for two cycles. At baseline, there were no differences in left ventricular developed pressure (LVDP), +/- dP/dtmax, and heart rate between SphK2 null (KO) and wild-type (WT) hearts. In KO hearts, SphK2 activity was undetectable, and SphK1 activity was unchanged compared to WT. Total SphK activity was reduced by 53%. SphK2 KO hearts subjected to IR exhibited significantly more cardiac damage (37 +/- 1% infarct size) compared with WT (28 +/- 1% infarct size); postischemic recovery of LVDP was lower in KO hearts. IPC exerted cardioprotection in WT hearts. The protective effect of IPC against IR was diminished in KO hearts which had much higher infarction sizes (35 +/- 2%) compared to the IPC/IR group in control hearts (12 +/- 1%). Western analysis revealed that KO hearts had substantial levels of phosphorylated p38 which could predispose the heart to IR injury. Thus, deletion of the SphK2 gene sensitizes the myocardium to IR injury and diminishes the protective effect of IPC.

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

4.3
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