4.6 Article

Mechanisms underlying the cardioprotective effect of L-cysteine

期刊

MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 277, 期 1-2, 页码 27-31

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11010-005-4817-y

关键词

L-cysteine; glutathione; ischaemia-reperfusion injury; myocardial protection

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In many tissues the availability of L-cysteine is a rate-limiting factor in glutathione production, though this has yet to be fully tested in heart. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that supplying hearts with 0.5 mM L-cysteine would preserve glutathione levels leading to an increased resistance to ischaemia reperfusion. Left ventricular function was measured in isolated perfused rat hearts before, during and after exposure to 45 min global normothermic ischaemia. Control hearts received Krebs throughout, whilst in treated hearts 0.5 mM L-cysteine was added to the perfusate 10 min before ischaemia, and was then present throughout ischaemia and for the first 10 min of reperfusion. Reperfusion injury was assessed from the appearance of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) in the effluent. In two separate groups of control and treated hearts, ATP and glutathione (GSH) contents were measured at the beginning and end of ischaemia. Hearts treated with 0.5 mM L-cysteine showed a significantly higher recovery of rate pressure product (16,256 +/- 1288 mmHg bpm vs. 10,324 +/- 2102 mmHg bpm, p < 0.05) and a significantly lower release of LDH (0.54 +/- 0.16 IU/g wet weight vs. 1.44 +/- 0.31 IU/g wet weight, p < 0.05) compared to controls. Also, the L-cysteine treated group showed significantly better preservation of ATP and GSH during ischaemia in comparison to control. These results suggest that the mechanisms underlying the cardioprotective effects of 0.5 mM L-cysteine may include: increased anaerobic energy production either directly or through reduced degradation of adenine nucleotides; direct scavenging of free radicals; and/or improved antioxidant capacity through glutathione preservation.

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