4.6 Article

Impact of age and sex on the development of atherosclerosis and expression of the related genes in apoE deficient mice

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.11.064

关键词

Atherosclerosis; Age; Sex; ABCA1; CD36

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [81473204, 81573427, 31400694]
  2. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT13023]
  3. 111 Project [B08011]
  4. International Science & Technology Cooperation Program of China [2015DFA30430]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of atherosclerosis is a chronic pathological process. ApoE deficient (apoE(-/-)) mice spontaneously develop atherosclerotic lesions. However, the impact of age and sex on lesions and expression of the related genes have not been fully elucidated. In this study, we collected blood and tissue samples from normal chow fed male and female apoE(-/-) mice at different ages, and determined serum lipids, PCSK9 levels, en face aortic lesions and expression of some pro- or anti-atherogenic genes. We determined that lesion development was clearly associated with age, and more lesions in males than females (12.6 +/- 1.7% vs. 8.9 +/- 1.1% at 8 months old, P < 0.05). Associated with age, serum total, LDL- and HDL-cholesterol and PCSK9 levels increased with more PCSK9 in females than males (313 +/- 31 ng/mL vs. 239 +/- 28 ng/mL at 8 months old, P < 0.05); expression of liver LDLR and ABCA1 decreased while of SR-BI increased; expression of macrophage ABCA1 and SR-BI decreased but of CD36 increased. Estrogen and tamoxifen induced ABCA1 and SR-BI expression, respectively, in macrophages isolated from female mice at the different age. Taken together, our study suggests that aging facilitates lesion development in apoE(-/-) mice with greater effect on male mice. The lesion development is also related to expression of pro- or anti-atherogenic genes in tissues, particularly in macrophages. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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