4.6 Article

COX-2-dependent and potentially cardioprotective effects of negative inotropic substances released after ischemia

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00074.2007

关键词

cyclooxygenase; potassium adenosine 5 '-triphosphate channels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During reperfusion, cardiodepressive factors are released from isolated rat hearts after ischemia. The present study analyzes the mechanisms by which these substances mediate their cardiodepressive effect. After 10 min of global stop-flow ischemia, rat hearts were reperfused and coronary effluent was collected over a period of 30 s. We tested the effect of this postischemic effluent on systolic cell shortening and Ca2+ metabolism by application of fluorescence microscopy of field-stimulated rat cardiomyocytes stained with fura-2 AM. Cells were preincubated with various inhibitors, e. g., the cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitor indomethacin, the COX-2 inhibitors NS-398 and lumira-coxib, the COX-1 inhibitor SC-560, and the potassium (ATP) channel blocker glibenclamide. Lysates of cardiomyocytes and extracts from whole rat hearts were tested for expression of COX-2 with Western blot analysis. As a result, in contrast to nonischemic effluent (control), postischemic effluent induced a reduction of Ca2+ transient and systolic cell shortening in the rat cardiomyocytes (P < 0.001 vs. control). After preincubation of cells with indomethacin, NS-398, and lumiracoxib, the negative inotropic effect was attenuated. SC-560 did not influence the effect of postischemic effluent. The inducibly expressed COX-2 was detected in cardiomyocytes prepared for fluorescence microscopy. The effect of postischemic effluent was eliminated with applications of glibenclamide. Furthermore, postischemic effluent significantly reduced the intracellular diastolic and systolic Ca2+ increase (P < 0.01 vs. control). In conclusion, the cardiodepressive effect of postischemic effluent is COX-2 dependent and protective against Ca2+ overload in the cells.

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