4.7 Article

Targeted deletion of p53 prevents cardiac rapture after myocardial infarction in mice

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 70, 期 3, 页码 457-465

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.02.001

关键词

apoptosis; extracellular matrix; infarction; myocytes; remodeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Apoptosis may play an important role in cardiac remodeling after myocardial infarction (MI). p53 is a well-known proapoptotic factor. However, its pathophysiological significance in these conditions remains unclear. We thus examined the effects of target deletion of the p53 gene on post-MI hearts. Methods: Anterior MI was created in male heterozygous p53-deficient (p53(+/-); n=28) mice and sibling wild-type (P53(+/-); n = 29) mice by ligating the left coronary artery. Results: By day 7, p53(+/-) mice had significantly better survival rate than p53(+/+) mice (89% vs. 69%, P < 0.05). Notably, p53(+/-) mice had a significantly lower incidence of left ventricular (LV) rupture (7% vs. 28%, P < 0.05) despite comparable infarct size (60 +/- 2% vs. 59 +/- 2%, P=NS), heart rate (488 +/- 15 vs. 489 +/- 17 bpm, P=NS), or mean arterial blood pressure (80 +/- 2 vs. 78 +/- 3 mm Hg, P=NS). The extent of infiltrating interstitial cells including macrophages into the post-MI hearts was not altered by the deletion of p53. Further, collagen deposition as well as the zymographic MMP-2 and -9 activities were comparable between p53(+/-) and p53(+/+) mice with MI. However, the p53(+/-) mice had a significantly thicker infarct wall. The number of TUNEL-positive cells in the infarct area was significantly lower in p53(+/-) mice than in p53(+/+) mice (423 +/- 86 vs. 1330 +/- 275/10(5) cells, P < 0.01). Conclusions: p53 is involved in cardiac rupture after MI, probably via the induction of a proapoptotic pathway. The inhibition of p53 may be a potentially useful therapeutic strategy to manage post-MI patients. (c) 2006 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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