4.6 Article

Short-term LPS induces aortic valve thickening in ApoE*3Leiden mice

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.13121

关键词

animal model; aortic valve stenosis; atherosclerosis; lipopolysaccharide; systemic inflammation

资金

  1. Edwards Lifesciences
  2. amsterdam cardiovascular sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Recently, it was shown that 12 weeks of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) administration to nonatherosclerotic mice induced thickening of the aortic heart valve (AV). Whether such effects may also occur even earlier is unknown. As most patients with AV stenosis also have atherosclerosis, we studied the short-term effect of LPS on the AVs in an atherosclerotic mouse model. Methods ApoE*3Leiden mice, on an atherogenic diet, were injected intraperitoneally with either LPS or phosphate buffered saline (PBS), and sacrificed 2 or 15 days later. AVs were assessed for size, fibrosis, glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), lipids, calcium deposits, iron deposits and inflammatory cells. Results LPS injection caused an increase in maximal leaflet thickness at 2 days (128.4 mu m) compared to PBS-injected mice (67.8 mu m; P = 0.007), whereas at 15 days this was not significantly different. LPS injection did not significantly affect average AV thickness on day 2 (37.8 mu m), but did significantly increase average AV thickness at day 15 (41.6 mu m; P = 0.038) compared to PBS-injected mice (31.7 and 32.3 mu m respectively). LPS injection did not affect AV fibrosis, GAGs and lipid content. Furthermore, no calcium deposits were found. Iron deposits, indicative for valve haemorrhage, were observed in one AV of the PBS-injected group (a day 2 mouse; 9.1%) and in five AVs of the LPS-injected group (both day 2- and 15 mice; 29.4%). No significant differences in inflammatory cell infiltration were observed upon LPS injection. Conclusion Short-term LPS apparently has the potential to increase AV thickening and haemorrhage. These results suggest that systemic inflammation can acutely compromise AV structure.

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