4.8 Article

Inactivation of phosphorylated endothelial nitric oxide synthase (Ser-1177) by O-GIcNAc in diabetes-associated erectile dysfunction

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0502488102

关键词

penis; penile erection; Akt; VEGF

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK067223, DK 02568, DK 067223] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impaired endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) function is associated with erectile dysfunction in diabetes mellitus, but the exact molecular basis for the eNOS defect in the diabetic penis remains unclear. We investigated whether hyperglycemia increases O-GlcNAc modification of eNOS in the penis, preventing phosphorylation at the primary positive regulatory site on the enzyme and hampering mechanisms of the erectile response. Type I diabetes mellitus was induced in male rats by alloxan (140 mg/kg, i.p.). After 5 wk, the diabetic rat penis exhibited increased O-GlcNAc modification of eNOS and decreased eNOS phosphorylation at Ser-1177 at baseline compared with the control rat penis; eNOS phosphorylation at Thr-495, Ser-615, and Ser-633 was not affected. In addition, eNOS phosphorylation at Ser-1177 was impaired in the diabetic rat penis in response to penile blood flow (shear stress) elicited by electrical stimulation of the cavernous nerve (ES) and to recombinant human VEGF165. Phosphorylation of Akt, a mediator of shear stress-induced eNOS phosphorylation at Ser-1 177, was decreased in the diabetic penis at baseline, but it was restored by ES. Erectile response to shear stress elicited by ES and to VEGF was decreased in diabetic compared with control rats. This work demonstrates that eNOS inactivation occurs in the diabetic penis by a glycosylation mechanism specifically at Ser1177, by which the enzyme is rendered incapable of activation by fluid shear stress stimuli and VEGF signaling. In vivo penile erection paradigm supports the physiologic relevance of O-GlcNAc modification in vascular disorders associated with diabetes.

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

4.8
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