4.6 Article

Calpain inhibitor-1 protects the rat heart from ischemia-reperfusion injury: analysis by mechanical work and energetics

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00666.2004

关键词

cardiac function; systolic pressure; volume area; oxygen consumption; alpha-fodrin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We hypothesized that calpain inhibitor-1 protected left ventricular (LV) function from ischemia-reperfusion injury by inhibiting the proteolysis of alpha-fodrin. To test this hypothesis, we investigated the effect of calpain inhibitor-1 on LV mechanical work and energetics in the cross-circulated rat hearts that underwent 15-min global ischemia and 60-min reperfusion (n = 9). After ischemia-reperfusion with calpain inhibitor-1, mean end-systolic pressure at midrange LV volume and systolic pressure-volume area (PVA) at midrange LV volume ( total mechanical energy per beat) were hardly changed, although they were significantly (P < 0.01) decreased after ischemia-reperfusion without calpain inhibitor-1. Mean myocardial oxygen consumption per beat (Vo(2)) intercepts ( PVA-independent Vo(2); Vo(2) for the total Ca2+ handling in excitation-contraction coupling and basal metabolism) of Vo(2)-PVA linear relations were also unchanged after ischemia-reperfusion with calpain inhibitor-1, although they were significantly (P < 0.01) decreased after ischemia-reperfusion without calpain inhibitor-1. There were no significant differences in O-2 costs of LV PVA and contractility among the hearts in control ( or normal) postischemia-reperfusion and postischemia-reperfusion with calpain inhibitor-1. Western blot analysis of alpha-fodrin and the immunostaining of 150-kDa products of alpha-fodrin confirmed that calpain inhibitor-1 almost completely protected the proteolysis of alpha-fodrin. Our results indicate that calpain inhibitor-1 prevents the heart from ischemia-reperfusion injury associated with the impairment of total Ca2+ handling by directly inhibiting the proteolysis of alpha-fodrin.

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