4.6 Article

Insulin resistance does not diminish eNOS expression, phosphorylation, or binding to HSP-90

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00280.2004

关键词

syndrome X; Zucker; obesity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL-067303, R01 HL-074279-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previously, using an animal model of syndrome X, the obese Zucker rat (OZR), we documented impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilation. The aim of this study was to determine whether reduced expression or altered posttranslational regulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) underlies the vascular dysfunction in OZR rats. There was no significant difference in the relative abundance of eNOS in hearts, aortas, or skeletal muscle between lean Zucker rats (LZR) and OZR regardless of age. There was no difference in eNOS mRNA levels, as determined by real-time PCR, between LZR and OZR. The inability of insulin resistance to modulate eNOS expression was also documented in two additional in vivo models, the ob/ob mouse and the fructose-fed rat, and in vitro via adenoviral expression of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B in endothelial cells. We next investigated whether changes in the acute posttranslational regulation of eNOS occurs with insulin resistance. Phosphorylation of eNOS at S632 (human S633) and T494 was not different between LZR and OZR; however, phosphorylation of S1176 was significantly enhanced in OZR. Phosphorylation of S1176 was not different in the ob/ob mouse or in fructose-fed rats. The association of heat shock protein 90 with eNOS, a key regulatory step controlling nitric oxide and aberrant O-2(-) production, was not different between OZR and LZR. Taken together, these results suggest that changes in eNOS expression or posttranslation regulation do not underlie the vascular dysfunction seen with insulin resistance and that other mechanisms, such as altered localization, reduced availability of cofactors, substrates, and the elevated production of O-2(-), may be responsible.

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