4.6 Article

The different response of cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts to mitochondria inhibition and the underlying role of STAT3

期刊

BASIC RESEARCH IN CARDIOLOGY
卷 114, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00395-019-0721-6

关键词

Cardiomyocytes; Cardiac fibroblasts; STAT3; Mitochondria; H2O2

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81773725, 91739102]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiomyocyte loss and cardiac fibrosis are the main characteristics of cardiac ischemia and heart failure, and mitochondrial function of cardiomyocytes is impaired in cardiac ischemia and heart failure, so the aim of this study is to identify fate variability of cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts with mitochondria inhibition and explore the underlying mechanism. The mitochondrial respiratory function was measured by using Oxygraph-2k high-resolution respirometry. The STAT3 expression and activity were evaluated by western blot. Cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts displayed different morphology. The mitochondrial respiratory function and the expressions of mitochondrial complex I, II, III, IV, and V of cardiac fibroblasts were lower than that of cardiomyocytes. Mitochondrial respiratory complex I inhibitor rotenone and H2O2 (100 mu M, 4h) treatment induced cell death of cardiomyocyte but not cardiac fibroblasts. The function of complex I/II was impaired in cardiomycytes but not cardiac fibroblasts stimulated with H2O2 (100 mu M, 4h) and in ischemic heart of mice. Rotenone and H2O2 (100 mu M, 4h) treatment reduced STAT3 expression and activity in cardiomyocytes but not cardiac fibroblasts. Inhibition of STAT3 impaired mitochondrial respiratory capacity and exacerbated H2O2-induced cell injury in cardiomycytes but not significantly in cardiac fibroblasts. In conclusion, the different susceptibility of cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts to mitochondria inhibition determines the cell fate under the same pathological stimuli and in which STAT3 plays a critical role.

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