4.6 Review

Effects of dyslipidaemia on monocyte production and function in cardiovascular disease

期刊

NATURE REVIEWS CARDIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 387-400

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.34

关键词

-

资金

  1. BHF CRTF [FS/14/50/30856]
  2. MRC [MR/M003159/1]
  3. Kidney Research UK [RP_019_20160303]
  4. Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
  5. NHMRC
  6. NHF
  7. Diabetes Australia
  8. MRC [MR/M003159/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  9. British Heart Foundation [FS/14/50/30856] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Medical Research Council [MR/M003159/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Monocytes are heterogeneous effector cells involved in the maintenance and restoration of tissue integrity. Monocytes and macrophages are involved in cardiovascular disease progression, and are associated with the development of unstable atherosclerotic plaques. Hyperlipidaemia can accelerate cardiovascular disease progression. However, monocyte responses to hyperlipidaemia are poorly understood. In the past decade, accumulating data describe the relationship between the dynamic blood lipid environment and the heterogeneous circulating monocyte pool, which might have profound consequences for cardiovascular disease. In this Review, we explore the updated view of monocytes in cardiovascular disease and their relationship with macrophages in promoting the homeostatic and inflammatory responses related to atherosclerosis. We describe the different definitions of dyslipidaemia, highlight current theories on the ontogeny of monocyte heterogeneity, discuss how dyslipidaemia might alter monocyte production, and explore the mechanistic interface linking dyslipidaemia with monocyte effector functions, such as migration and the inflammatory response. Finally, we discuss the role of dietary and endogenous lipid species in mediating dyslipidaemic responses, and the role of these lipids in promoting the risk of cardiovascular disease through modulation of monocyte behaviour.

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