4.6 Article

Hemodynamic Effects of the Non-Peptidic Angiotensin-(1-7) Agonist AVE0991 in Liver Cirrhosis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138732

关键词

-

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB TRR57 P18, WA1441/22-2]
  2. J. & W. Hector- Foundation [M60.2]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [APP1008252]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims Although in cirrhosis with portal hypertension levels of the vasoconstrictor angiotensin II are increased, this is accompanied by increased production of angiotensin (Ang)-(1-7), the endogenous ligand of the Mas receptor (MasR), which blunts hepatic fibrosis and decreases hepatic vascular resistance. Therefore, we investigated the effects of the non-peptidic Ang-(1-7) agonist, AVE0991, in experimental cirrhosis. Methods Cirrhosis was induced by bile duct ligation (BDL) or carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) intoxication. The coloured microsphere technique assessed portal and systemic hemodynamic effects of AVE0991 in vivo. Hepatic expression of eNOS, p-eNOS, iNOS, JAK2, ROCK and p-Moesin were analyzed by western blots. Activities of ACE and ACE2 were investigated fluorometrically. Moreover, fibrosis was assessed in BDL rats receiving AVE0991. Results In vivo, AVE0991 decreased portal pressure (PP) in both rat models of cirrhosis. Importantly, systemic effects were not observed. The hepatic effects of AVE0991 were based on upregulation of vasodilating pathways involving p-eNOS and iNOS, as well as by down-regulation of the vasoconstrictive pathways (ROCK, p-Moesin). Short-term treatment with AVE0991 decreased the activity of ACE2, long-term treatment did not affect hepatic fibrosis in BDL rats. Conclusions The non-peptidic agonist of Ang-(1-7), AVE0991, decreases portal pressure without influencing systemic pressure. Thus, although it does not inhibit fibrosis, AVE0991 may represent a promising new therapeutic strategy for lowering portal pressure.

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