4.7 Article

Role of smooth muscle cGMP/cGKI signaling in murine vascular restenosis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.166405

关键词

nitric oxide; PKG; atherosclerosis; carotid ligation; wire-injury

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL020948-210015, R01 HL063762-02, P01 HL020948, P01 HL020948-230015, R01 HL063762-08, R01 HL063762-07, R01 HL063762, P01 HL020948-250015, R01 HL063762-06, P01 HL020948-310005, R01 HL063762-01, P01 HL020948-240015, R01 HL063762-04, R01 HL063762-09, P01 HL020948-220015, R37 HL063762, R01 HL063762-10, R01 HL063762-03, R01 HL063762-05, P01 HL020948-320005] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Nitric oxide (NO) is of crucial importance for smooth muscle cell (SMC) function and exerts numerous, and sometimes opposing, effects on vascular restenosis. Although cGMP-dependent protein kinase type I (cGKI) is a principal effector of NO, the molecular pathway of vascular NO signaling in restenosis is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine the functional role of the smooth muscle cGMP/cGKI signaling cascade in restenosis of vessels. Methods and Results-Tissue-specific mouse mutants were generated in which the cGKI protein was ablated in SMCs. We investigated whether the absence of cGKI in SMCs would affect vascular remodeling after carotid ligation or removal of the endothelium. No differences were detected between the tissue-specific cGKI mutants and control mice at different time points after vascular injury on a normolipidemic or apoE-deficient background. In line with these results, chronic drug treatment of injured control mice with the phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor sildenafil elevated cGMP levels but had no influence on the ligation-induced remodeling. Conclusions-The genetic and pharmacological manipulation of the cGMP/cGKI signaling indicates that this pathway is not involved in the protective effects of NO, suggesting that NO affects vascular remodeling during restenosis via alternative mechanisms.

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