4.2 Article

Puerarin Attenuates Anoxia/Reoxygenation Injury Through Enhancing Bcl-2 Associated Athanogene 3 Expression, a Modulator of Apoptosis and Autophagy

期刊

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
卷 22, 期 -, 页码 977-983

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.897379

关键词

Autophagy; Myocytes, Cardiac; Reperfusion Injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Puerarin has protective effects on ischemia-reperfusion injury, but the underlying mechanisms are not fully revealed. This study explored the effect of puerarin on the expression of Bcl-2 associated athanogene 3 (BAG3) in an in vitro model of anoxia/reoxygenation injury (A/RI) in neonate rat primary cardiomyocytes and the functions of BAG3 in A/RI. Material/Methods: BAG3 expression in cardiomyocytes with or without puerarin pre-treatment was quantified using qRT-PCR and Western blot analysis. The effects of BAG3 on A/RI were studied by measuring the activity of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and creatine phosphate kinase (CPK), the concentration of malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px). The effects of BAG3 on autophagy and apoptosis of the cardiomyocytes after A/RI were further studied. Results: Puerarin significantly promoted BAG3 expression in the rat primary cardiomyocytes after A/RI. Enforced BAG3 expression presented similar effects as puerarin pre-treatment in attenuating A/RI in terms of CPK, LDH, MDA, SOD, GSH-Px, ROS generation, and cell viability. BAG3 overexpression significantly stimulated autophagy in cardiomyocytes after A/RI, which presented protective effects on A/RI in terms of cell viability and apoptosis. Autophagy inhibition partly abrogated the protective effects of BAG3. Conclusions: Puerarin can directly increase BAG3 transcription and translation in cardiomyocytes after A/RI. The elevated BAG3 expression presents protective effects on A/RI at least through enhancing autophagy and reducing apoptosis, which is a novel protective mechanism of puerarin in ARI.

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

4.2
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