3.9 Article

Human catestatin peptides differentially regulate infarct size in the ischemic-reperfused rat heart

期刊

REGULATORY PEPTIDES
卷 165, 期 1, 页码 63-70

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.regpep.2010.07.153

关键词

Infarction; Reperfusion; Ischemia; Catestatin; Chromogranin A

资金

  1. University of Bergen
  2. University of Bergen Heart Foundation
  3. L Meltzer Foundation
  4. Norwegian Heart Foundation
  5. Tordis and Fritz Rieber Legacy in Bergen
  6. Department of Veterans Affairs
  7. National Institutes of Health [R01 DA011311, P01 HL58120]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In acute myocardial infarction increased plasma levels of chromogranin A are correlated with decreased survival. At the human chromogranin A gene locus there are two naturally occurring amino acid substitution variants within the catestatin region, i.e. Gly(364)Ser and Pro(370)Leu, displaying differential potencies towards inhibition of nicotinic cholinergic agonist-evoked catecholamine secretion from sympathochromaffin cells and different degrees of processing from the prohormone. Here, we examine whether two of the variants and the wild type catestatin may affect the development of infarct size during ischemic reperfusion in the Langendorff rat heart model. The hearts were subjected to regional ischemia followed by reperfusion in the presence or absence of synthetic variants of human catestatin. Compared to the Gly(364)Ser variant both the wild type and Pro(370)Leu variants increased infarct size while decreasing the cardiac levels of phosphorylated Akt and two of its downstream targets, FoxO1 and BAD. In conclusion, these findings suggest that, in contrast to the Gly(364)Ser variant, wild type catestatin and the Pro(370)Leu variant (allele frequency similar to 0.3%) increased myocardial infarct size via a mechanism involving dephosphorylation of Akt and the two downstream targets during ischemic reperfusion in the isolated rat heart. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

3.9
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