4.4 Article

Inhibitory effect of GSPE on RAGE expression induced by advanced glycation end products in endothelial cells

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 434-440

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/FJC.0b013e3181342bfa

关键词

proanthocyanidin; glycation; receptor; endothelial cells; reactive oxygen species

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Advanced glycation end products' (AGEs) engagement of a cell-surface receptor for AGEs (RAGE) has been causally implicated in the pathogenesis of diabetic vascular complications via induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and subsequent alteration of many gene expressions, including RAGE itself Grapeseed proanthocyanidin extract (GSPE), which is a naturally occurring polyphenolic compound, has been reported to possess potent radical-scavenging and antioxidant properties and to display significant cardiovascular protective action. In this study, we investigated whether GSPE could inhibit AGE-induced RAGE expression through interference with ROS generation in human umbilical-vein endothelial cells (HUVECs). AGE-modified bovine serum albumin (AGE-BSA) was prepared by incubating BSA with high-concentration glucose. Stimulation of cultured HUVECs with 200 mu g/mL of AGE-BSA significantly enhanced intracellular ROS formation and subsequently upregulated the protein and mRNA expression of RAGE; unmodified BSA and GSPE alone had no effect. However, GSPE preincubation markedly downregulated AGE-induced surface expression of RAGE in a time- and concentration-dependent manner. In AGE-stimulated HUVECs, GSPE also dose-dependently decreased RAGE mRNA levels and inhibited AGE-induced ROS generation at defined time periods. These results demonstrate that GSPE can inhibit enhanced RAGE expression in AGE-exposed endothelial cells by suppressing ROS generation, thereby limiting the AGE-RAGE interaction. Hence, GSPE may have therapeutic potential in the prevention and treatment of vascular complications in diabetic patients.

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

4.4
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