4.6 Article

Simulated ischemia-induced preconditioning of isolated ventricular myocytes from young adult and aged Fischer-344 rat hearts

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00432.2008

关键词

cardioprotection; reperfusion; mechanical alternans; senescence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of ischemic preconditioning (IPC) on contraction, Ca2+ homeostasis, and cell survival was compared in isolated ventricular myocytes from young adult (similar to 3 mo) and aged (similar to 24 mo) male Fischer-344 rats. Myocytes were field stimulated at 4 Hz (37 degrees C). Contraction (edge detector) and intracellular Ca2+ (fura-2) were measured simultaneously. Viability was assessed with trypan blue. All cells were exposed to 30 min of simulated ischemia followed by reperfusion. Some cells were preconditioned by exposure to 5 min of simulated ischemia before prolonged ischemia. Pretreatment with IPC abolished postischemic contractile depression, inhibited diastolic contracture, and increased Ca2+ transient amplitudes in reperfusion in young adult and aged cells. IPC did not affect the modest rise in diastolic Ca2+ in ischemia in young adult myocytes. However, IPC abolished the marked rise in diastolic Ca2+ observed in ischemia and early reperfusion in aged myocytes. IPC also suppressed mechanical alternans in ischemia in aged cells, but younger myocytes showed little evidence of mechanical alternans whether or not cells were preconditioned. IPC markedly improved cell viability in reperfusion in young adult but not aged cells. These results suggest that IPC augments the recovery of contractile function in reperfusion by increasing Ca2+ transient amplitudes in ventricular myocytes from young adult and aged rats. IPC reduced diastolic Ca2+ accumulation in ischemia in aged myocytes, which may diminish the severity of mechanical alternans in aged cells. Nonetheless, the efficacy of IPC is compromised in aging, as IPC did not improve survival of aged myocytes exposed to ischemia and reperfusion.

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