4.6 Article

Reduced ability to release adenosine by diabetic rat cardiac fibroblasts due to altered expression of nucleoside transporters

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 576, 期 1, 页码 179-189

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.111278

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adenosine produced by cardiac cells is known to attenuate the proliferation of cardiac fibroblasts (CFs), inhibit collagen synthesis, and protect the myocardium against ischaemic and reperfusion injury. Diabetic patients' hearts exhibit ventricular hypertrophy and demonstrate reduced tolerance to hypoxia or ischaemia. In this study, we characterize the effects of glucose and insulin on processes that determine the release of adenosine from Us. We showed that during ATP depletion, rat CFs cultured in the absence of insulin release significantly less adenosine compared to cells grown in the presence of insulin. Moreover, under both conditions the quantity of released adenosine depends on glucose concentration. We demonstrate that this is due to altered expression of nucleoside transporters. High glucose (25 mM) induced 85% decrease in nucleoside transporter ENT1 mRNA levels. Decrease of the insulin level below 10(-11) M resulted in over 3-fold increase in the nucleoside transporter CNT2 mRNA content. Measurements of adenosine transport in Us cultured in the presence of 5 mm glucose and 10 nM insulin showed that the bidirectional equilibrative adenosine transport accounted for 70% of the overall adenosine uptake. However, cells grown in the presence of high glucose (25 mM) demonstrated 65% decrease of the bidirectional equilibrative adenosine transport. Experiments on Us cultured in the absence of insulin showed that the unidirectional Na+-dependent adenosine uptake rose in these cells more than 4-fold. These results indicate that the development of diabetes may result in an increased uptake of interstitial adenosine by CFs, and reduction of the ability of these cells to release adenosine during ATP deprivation.

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