4.7 Article

Sulforaphane prevents rat cardiomyocytes from hypoxia/reoxygenation injury in vitro via activating SIRT1 and subsequently inhibiting ER stress

期刊

ACTA PHARMACOLOGICA SINICA
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 344-353

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/aps.2015.130

关键词

sulforaphane; cardioprotection; cardiomyocytes; hypoxia/reoxygenation; apoptosis; ER stress; SIRT1 signaling; Ex-527

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270218, 81400190]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province [2014A020212191]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Sulforaphane (SFN), a natural dietary isothiocyanate, is found to exert beneficial effects for cardiovascular diseases. This study aimed to investigate the mechanisms underlying the protective effects of SFN in a model of myocardial hypoxia/reoxygenation (H/R) injury in vitro. Methods: Cultured neonatal rat cardiomyocytes pretreated with SFN were subjected to 3-h hypoxia followed by 3-h reoxygenation. Cell viability and apoptosis were detected. Caspase-3 activity and mitochondrial membrane potential (Delta psi m) was measured. The expression of ER stress-related apoptotic proteins were analyzed with Western blot analyses. Silent information regulator 1 (SIRT1) activity was determined with SIRT1 deacetylase fluorometric assay kit. Results: SFN (0.1-5 mu mol/L) dose-dependently improved the viability of cardiomyocytes, diminished apoptotic cells and suppressed caspase-3 activity. Meanwhile, SFN significantly alleviated the damage of Delta psi m and decreased the expression of ER stress-related apoptosis proteins (GRP78, CHOP and caspase-12), elevating the expression of SIRT1 and Bcl-2/Bax ratio in the cardiomyocytes. Co-treatment of the cardiomyocytes with the SIRT1-specific inhibitor Ex-527 (1 mu mol/L) blocked the SFN-induced cardioprotective effects. Conclusion: SFN prevents cardiomyocytes from H/R injury in vitro most likely via activating SIRT1 pathway and subsequently inhibiting the ER stress-dependent apoptosis.

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