4.7 Article

Ryanodine receptor mutations associated with stress-induced ventricular tachycardia mediate increased calcium release in stimulated cardiomyocytes

期刊

CIRCULATION RESEARCH
卷 93, 期 6, 页码 531-540

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.RES.0000091335.07574.86

关键词

ryanodine receptors; mutations; ventricular tachycardia; stress; cardiomyocytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ca2+ release from the sarcoplasmic reticulum mediated by the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) is a fundamental event in cardiac muscle contraction. RyR2 mutations suggested to cause defective Ca2+ channel function have recently been identified in catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) and arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD) affected individuals. We report expression of three CPVT-linked human RyR2 (hRyR2) mutations ((SL)-L-2246, (NK)-K-4104, and (RC)-C-4497) in HL-1 cardiomyocytes displaying correct targeting to the endoplasmic reticulum. (NK)-K-4104 also localized to the Golgi apparatus. Phenotypic characteristics including intracellular Ca2+ handling, proliferation, viability, RyR2:FKBP12.6 interaction, and beat rate in resting HL-1 cells expressing mutant hRyR2 were indistinguishable from wild-type (WT) hRyR2. However, Ca2+ release was augmented in cells expressing mutant hRyR2 after RyR activation (caffeine and 4-chloro-m-cresol) or beta-adrenergic stimulation (isoproterenol). RyR2: FKBP12.6 interaction remained intact after caffeine or 4-CMC activation, but was dramatically disrupted by isoproterenol or forskolin, an activator of adenylate cyclase. Isoproterenol and forskolin elevated cyclic-AMP to similar magnitudes in all cells and were associated with equivalent hyperphosphorylation of mutant and WT hRyR2. CPVT-linked mutations in hRyR2 did not alter resting cardiomyocyte phenotype but mediated augmented Ca2+ release on RyR-agonist or beta-AR stimulation. Furthermore, equivalent interaction between mutant and WT hRyR2 and FKBP12.6 was demonstrated.

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