4.7 Article

Role of Uric Acid in Vascular Remodeling: Cytoskeleton Changes and Migration in VSMCs

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032960

关键词

uric acid; vascular smooth muscle cell; migration; phenotypic transition; vascular remodeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates that uric acid (UA) can induce changes in VSMC cytoskeleton, leading to increased cell migration and activation of specific signaling pathways. These findings suggest that UA may play a critical role in vascular remodeling, emphasizing the importance of interventions to prevent the development of cardiovascular diseases.
The mechanisms by which hyperuricemia induces vascular dysfunction and contributes to cardiovascular disease are still debated. Phenotypic transition is a property of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) involved in organ damage. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of uric acid (UA) on changes in the VSMC cytoskeleton, cell migration and the signals involved in these processes. MOVAS, a mouse VSMC line, was incubated with 6, 9 and 12 mg/dL of UA, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), proteasome and MEK-inhibitors. Migration property was assessed in a micro-chemotaxis chamber and by phalloidin staining. Changes in cytoskeleton proteins (Smoothelin B (SMTB), alpha-Smooth Muscle Actin (alpha SMA), Smooth Muscle 22 Alpha (SM22 alpha)), Atrogin-1 and MAPK activation were determined by Western blot, immunostaining and quantitative reverse transcription PCR. UA exposition modified SMT, alpha SMA and SM22 alpha levels (p < 0.05) and significantly upregulated Atrogin-1 and MAPK activation. UA-treated VSMCs showed an increased migratory rate as compared to control cells (p < 0.001) and a re-arrangement of F-actin. Probenecid, proteasome inhibition and ARBs prevented the development of dysfunctional VSMC. This study shows, for the first time, that UA-induced cytoskeleton changes determine an increase in VSMC migratory rate, suggesting UA as a key player in vascular remodeling.

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