4.3 Article

GDF5 deficiency prevents cardiac rupture following acute myocardial infarction in mice

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR PATHOLOGY
卷 68, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.carpath.2023.107581

关键词

cardiac rupture; Fibrosis; GDF5; Molecular biology; Myocardial infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that GDF5 deficiency can reduce the incidence of cardiac rupture after myocardial infarction and improve survival rates in mice. Additionally, GDF5 deficiency leads to increased myocardial fibrosis and decreased afterload. However, it also results in the occurrence of chronic adverse remodeling.
Background: We previously showed that growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF5) limits infarct expansion post-myocardial infarction (MI). We now examine the acute post-MI role of GDF5 in cardiac rupture.Methods and results: Following permanent ligation of the left anterior descending artery, GDF5 deficiency (i.e., GDF5 knockout mice) reduced the incidence of cardiac rupture (4/24 vs. 17/24; P < .05), and improved survival over 28-d compared to wild-type (WT) mice (79% vs. 25%; P < .0001). Moreover, at 3-d post-MI, GDF5-deficient mice manifest: (a) reduced heart weight/body weight ratio (P < .0001) without differences in infarct size or cardiomyocyte size; (b) increased infarct zone expression of Col1a1 (P < .05) and Col3a1 (P < .01), suggesting increased myocardial fibrosis; and (c) reduced aortic and left ventricular peak systolic pressures (P <= .05), suggesting reduced afterload. Despite dysregulated inflammatory markers and reduced circulating monocytes in GDF5-deficient mice at 3-d post-MI, reciprocal bone marrow transplantation (BMT) failed to implicate GDF5 in BM-derived cells, suggesting the involvement of tissue-resident GDF5 expression in cardiac rupture.Conclusions: Loss of GDF5 reduces cardiac rupture post-MI with increased myocardial fibrosis and lower afterload, albeit at the cost of chronic adverse remodeling.(c) 2023 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

4.3
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