4.5 Article

Gender differences in cardioprotection against Ischemia/Reperfusion injury in adult rat hearts: Focus on Akt and protein kinase C signaling

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.105.090803

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-57787, HL-67745] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [HD-31226] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous studies have reported the sex differences in heart susceptibility to ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury, but the mechanisms are not understood. The present study tested the hypothesis that Akt and protein kinase C (PKC)epsilon play an important role in the sexual dimorphism of heart susceptibility to I/R injury. Isolated hearts from 2-month-old male and female rats were subjected to I/R in the Langendorff preparation. The post-ischemic recovery of left ventricular function was significantly better, and infarct size was significantly smaller in female (37.1 +/- 1.9%) than in male (48.3 +/- 2.3%) hearts after 25-min ischemia followed by 2-h reperfusion. Inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt pathway by wortmannin or PKC by chelerythrine chloride before ischemia significantly reduced postischemic recovery and increased infarct size in female but not male hearts. There were no differences in myocardial protein levels of heat shock protein 70, Akt, and PKC epsilon, respectively, between male and female rats. However, the ratio of phosphorylated (p)-Akt/Akt (0.58 +/- 0.05 versus 0.22 +/- 0.04; P < 0.05) and p-PKC epsilon/PKC epsilon (0.35 +/- 0.03 versus 0.22 +/- 0.02; P < 0.05) was significantly higher in female than in male hearts. In addition, there were significant increases in p-Akt and pPKC epsilon levels during reperfusion in female but not in male hearts. The results suggest that increased p-Akt and p-PKC epsilon levels in female hearts contribute to the gender-related differences in heart susceptibility to I/R and play an important role in cardio-protection against I/R injury in females.

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

4.5
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