4.7 Article

Differential activation of mitogenic signaling pathways in aortic smooth muscle cells deficient in superoxide dismutase isoforms

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000161050.77646.68

关键词

ROS; SMC; thrombin; SOD; cell signaling

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-57352] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-21096] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-Reactive oxygen species (ROS) integrate cellular signaling pathways involved in aortic smooth muscle cell (SMC) proliferation and migration associated with atherosclerosis. However, the effect of subcellular localization of ROS on SMC mitogenic signaling is not yet fully understood. Methods and Results-We used superoxide dismutase (SOD)-deficient mouse aortic SMCs to address the role of subcellular ROS localization on SMC phenotype and mitogenic signaling. Compared with wild-type, a 54% decrease in total SOD activity (approximate to 50% decrease in SOD1 protein levels) and a 42% reduction in SOD2 activity (approximate to 50% decrease in SOD2 protein levels) were observed in SOD1(+/-) and SOD2(+/-) SMCs, respectively. Consistent with this, basal and thrombin-induced superoxide levels increased in these SMCs. SOD1(+/-) and SOD2(+/-) SMCs exhibit increased basal proliferation and enhanced [H-3]-thymidine and [H-3]-leucine incorporation in basal and thrombin-stimulated conditions. Our results indicate preferential activation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2 (ERK1/2) and p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases in SOD1(+/-) and janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcriptase (JAK/STAT) pathway in SOD2(+/-) SMCs. Pharmacological inhibitors of ERK1/2 p38 and JAK2 confirm the SOD genotype-dependent SMC proliferation. Conclusions-Our results suggest that SOD1 and SOD2 regulate SMC quiescence by suppressing divergent mitogenic signaling pathways, and dysregulation of these enzymes under pathophysiological conditions may lead to SMC hyperplasia and hypertrophy.

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