4.5 Article

Insufficient fumarase contributes to hypertension by an imbalance of redox metabolism in Dahl salt-sensitive rats

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 11, 页码 1672-1682

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41440-019-0290-y

关键词

Dahl salt-sensitive rats; Fumarase; Fumarate; Reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81770728, 81570655, 51703178]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fumarase insufficiencies can increase reactive oxygen species (ROS). This study will further dissect the imbalance of redox metabolism and the mechanism of ROS production using proteomic technology in fumarase knockdown HK-2 cells. The contribution of fumarase was further confirmed by supplementation of fumarate and malate in Dahl salt-sensitive rats. Proteomic analysis indicated that fumarase knockdown in HK-2 cells changed the expression or activity of NADPH oxidase (NOX), mitochondrial respiratory chain Complex I and III, ATP synthase subunits, and alpha-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase (OGDH). Meanwhile, the activities of key antioxidant enzymes, including glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, glutathione reductase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione S-transferase, increased significantly. The apparent activation of antioxidant defense appeared insufficient as the glutathione and GSH/GSSG ratio were decreased significantly. Dahl salt-sensitive rats exhibited changes in redox metabolism similar to HK-2 cells with fumarase knockdown. Supplementation with fumarate and malate increased and decreased, respectively, blood pressure and H2O2 and malondialdehyde in salt-sensitive rats. These results indicated that insufficient fumarase activity increased ROS by regulating NOX, Complex I and III, ATPase alpha, and OGDH and the imbalance of glutathione metabolism, which may be one of the main reasons for salt-sensitive hypertension. Malate may be a potentially effective drug for the prevention and treatment of salt-sensitive hypertension.

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

4.5
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