4.7 Article

Xanthine oxidase inhibitor tungsten prevents the development of atherosclerosis in ApoE knockout mice fed a Western-type diet

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 41, 期 9, 页码 1353-1360

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2006.03.026

关键词

oxidative stress; atherosclerosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperlipidemia enhances xanthine oxidase (XO) activity. XO is an important source of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Since ROS are thought to promote atherosclerosis, we hypothesized that XO is involved in the development of atherosclerosis. ApoE(-/-) mice were fed a Western-type (WD) or control diet. In subgroups, tungsten (700 mg/L) was administered to inhibit XO. XO is a secreted enzyme which is formed in the liver as xanthine dehydrogenase (XDH) and binds to the vascular endothelium. High expression of XDH was found in the liver and WD increased liver XDH mRNA and XDH protein expression. WD induced the conversion of XDH to the radical-forming XO. Moreover, WD increased the hepatic expression of CD40, demonstrating activation of hepatic cells. Aortic tissue of ApoE(-/-) mice fed a WD for 6 months exhibited marked atherosclerosis, attenuated endothelium-dependent relaxation to acetylcholine, increased vascular oxidative stress, and mRTNA expression of the chemokine KC. Tungsten treatment had no effect on plasma lipids but lowered the plasma XO activity. In animals fed a control diet, tungsten had no effect on radical formation, endothelial function, or atherosclerosis development. In mice fed a WD, however tungsten attenuated the vascular superoxide anion formation, prevented endothelial dysfunction, and attenuated KC mRNA expression. Most importantly, tungsten treatment largely prevented the development of atherosclerosis in the aorta of ApoE(-/-) mice on WD. Therefore, tungsten, potentially via the inhibition of XO, prevents the development of endothelial dysfunction and atherosclerosis in ApoE t mice on WD. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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