4.6 Article

Atherosclerosis in LDLR-Knockout Mice Is Inhibited, but Not Reversed, by the PPARγ Ligand Pioglitazone

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 174, 期 6, 页码 2007-2014

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/ajpath.2009.080611

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIH P01HL072942]
  2. Julia and Seymour Gross Foundation
  3. Abercrombie Foundation
  4. [2009CB918900]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thiazolidinediones, a class of drugs for the treatment of type-2 diabetes, are synthetic ligands for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma. They have been demonstrated to possess cardioprotective effects in humans and anti-atherogenic properties in animal models. However, the question remains whether a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma ligand can reverse the development of atherosclerosis. In this study, we tested the effects of pioglitazone on the development of established atherosclerosis in low-density lipoprotein receptor-null mice. We observed that atherosclerosis in low-density lipoprotein receptor-null mice progressed when mice were fed a high-fat diet. Pioglitazone treatment of atherogenic mice prevented this progression of atherosclerosis from its middle stages of disease, but was not able to reverse it. Withdrawal of the high-fat diet from mice with advanced atherosclerosis did not result in a reduction in lesion sizes. Pioglitazone treatment also had no effect on advanced atherosclerosis. Levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol correlated inversely with lesion development when pioglitazone was given during lesion progression. However, pioglitazone had no effect on circulating high density lipoprotein levels in mice in which treatment was initiated following 14 weeks on the high-fat diet. These findings have implications for the analysis of therapeutic agents in murine models of atherosclerosis and the use of pioglitazone in patients with established atherosclerosis. (Am J Pathol 2009, 174:2007-2014; DOI:10.2353/ajpath.2009.080611)

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