4.2 Article

Circulating endothelial progenitor cell deficiency contributes to impaired arterial elasticity in persons of advancing age

期刊

JOURNAL OF HUMAN HYPERTENSION
卷 20, 期 7, 页码 490-495

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001996

关键词

arterial elasticity; endothelial progenitor cell; ageing endothelium; bone marrow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced arterial elasticity is a hallmark of ageing in healthy humans and appears to occur independently of coexisting disease processes. Endothelial-cell injury and dysfunction may be responsible for this fall in arterial elasticity. We hypothesized that circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are involved in endothelial repair and that lack of EPCs contributes to impaired arterial elasticity. A total of 56 healthy male volunteers were divided into young (n = 26) and elderly (n = 30) groups. Large and small artery elasticity indices were noninvasively assessed using pulse wave analysis. The number of circulating EPCs was measured by using flow cytometry. Cells demonstrating DiI-acLDL and FITC-ulex lectin double-positive fluorescence were identified as EPCs. C1 large artery elasticity and C2 small artery elasticity indices were significantly reduced in the elderly group compared with the young group 11.73+/-1.45 vs 16.88+/-1.69 ml/mmHg x 10, P<0.001; 8.40+/-1.45 vs 10.58+/-1.18 ml/mmHg x 100, P<0.001, respectively). In parallel, the number of circulating EPCs was significantly reduced in the elderly group compared with the young group (0.13+/-0.02 vs 0.17+/-0.04%, P<0.05). The number of circulating EPCs correlated with C1 large and C2 small artery elasticity indices (r = 0.47, P<0.01; r = 0.4, P<0.01). The present findings suggest that the fall in circulating EPCs with subsequently impaired endothelial-cell repair and function contributes to reduced arterial elasticity in humans with ageing. The decrease in circulating EPCs may serve as a surrogate biologic measure of vascular function and human age.

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

4.2
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