4.6 Article

Variation of mechanical properties and quantitative proteomics of VSMC along the arterial tree

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00655.2013

关键词

vascular smooth muscle; extracellular matrix; aorta; smooth muscle cells

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  2. Fleury Group, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  3. [2012/21103-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) are thought to assume a quiescent and homogeneous mechanical behavior after arterial tree development phase. However, VSMCs are known to be molecularly heterogeneous in other aspects and their mechanics may play a role in pathological situations. Our aim was to evaluate VSMCs from different arterial beds in terms of mechanics and proteomics, as well as investigate factors that may influence this phenotype. VSMCs obtained from seven arteries were studied using optical magnetic twisting cytometry (both in static state and after stretching) and shotgun proteomics. VSMC mechanical data were correlated with anatomical parameters and ultrastructural images of their vessels of origin. Femoral, renal, abdominal aorta, carotid, mammary, and thoracic aorta exhibited descending order of stiffness (G, P < 0.001). VSMC mechanical data correlated with the vessel percentage of elastin and amount of surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM), which decreased with the distance from the heart. After 48 h of stretching simulating regional blood flow of elastic arteries, VSMCs exhibited a reduction in basal rigidity. VSMCs from the thoracic aorta expressed a significantly higher amount of proteins related to cytoskeleton structure and organization vs. VSMCs from the femoral artery. VSMCs are heterogeneous in terms of mechanical properties and expression/organization of cytoskeleton proteins along the arterial tree. The mechanical phenotype correlates with the composition of ECM and can be modulated by cyclic stretching imposed on VSMCs by blood flow circumferential stress.

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