4.7 Article

Inhibition of Rac1 signaling by lovastatin protects against anthracycline-induced cardiac toxicity

期刊

CELL DEATH & DISEASE
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cddis.2011.65

关键词

anthracyclines; normal tissue damage; Rho GTPases; statins; DNA damage response

资金

  1. Deutsche Krebshilfe [107361]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Normal tissue damage limits the efficacy of anticancer therapy. For anthracyclines, the clinically most relevant adverse effect is cardiotoxicity. The mechanisms involved are poorly understood and putative cardioprotectants are controversially discussed. Here, we show that the lipid-lowering drug lovastatin protects rat H9c2 cardiomyoblasts from doxorubicin in vitro. Protection by lovastatin is related to inhibition of the Ras-homologous GTPase Rac1. It rests on a reduced formation of DNA double-strand breaks, resulting from the inhibition of topoisomerase II by doxorubicin. Doxorubicin transport and reactive oxygen species are not involved. Protection by lovastatin was confirmed in vivo. In mice, lovastatin mitigated acute doxorubicin-induced heart and liver damage as indicated by reduced mRNA levels of the pro-fibrotic cytokine connective tissue growth factor (CTGF) and pro-inflammatory cytokines, respectively. Lovastatin also protected from doxorubicin-provoked subacute cardiac damage as shown by lowered mRNA levels of CTGF and atrial natriuretic peptide. Increase in the serum concentration of troponin I and cardiac fibrosis following doxorubicin treatment were also reduced by lovastatin. Whereas protecting the heart from harmful doxorubicin effects, lovastatin augmented its anticancer efficacy in a mouse xenograft model with human sarcoma cells. These data show that statins lower the incidence of cardiac tissue injury after anthracycline treatment in a Rac1-dependent manner, without impairing the therapeutic efficacy. Cell Death and Disease (2011) 2, e190; doi:10.1038/cddis.2011.65; published online 11 August 2011

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

4.7
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