4.7 Article

Proapoptotic, antimigratory, antiproliferative, and antiangiogenic effects of commercial C-reactive protein on various human endothelial cell types in vitro - Implications of contaminating presence of sodium azide in commercial preparation

期刊

CIRCULATION RESEARCH
卷 97, 期 2, 页码 135-143

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.RES.0000174612.90094.fd

关键词

CRP; sodium azide; endothelial progenitor cells; apoptosis

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL66958] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent experimental studies suggest C-reactive protein (CRP) may be a potential mediator of atherosclerosis and its complications. However, there is growing criticism of in vitro CRP studies that use commercial CRP preparations containing biologically active contaminants. The effects of commercial CRP, dialyzed commercial CRP (dCRP) to remove azide, and sodium azide (NaN3) alone at equivalent concentrations to the undialyzed preparation were tested at varying concentrations on human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC), circulating endothelial outgrowth cells (EOC), and endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) in vitro. CRP and NaN3 alone exhibited equivalent concentration-dependent, proapoptotic effects on HUVEC, EOC, and EPC (P < 0.01 versus control), whereas dCRP had no such effect. Similarly, CRP and NaN3 alone caused equivalent concentration-dependent decreases in migration, proliferation, and matrigel tube formation (P < 0.01 versus control) in EOC and HUVEC, whereas dCRP had absolutely no effect on these biological functions at any of the concentrations used. We conclude that proapoptotic, antiproliferative, antimigratory, and antiangiogenic effects of this commercial CRP preparation on a number of endothelial cell phenotypes in culture may be explained by the presence of sodium azide in this preparation. This study has implications for interpretation of in vitro studies using CRP preparations containing azide at equivalent or higher concentrations.

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