4.7 Article

Low tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 3 and high matrix metalloproteinase 14 levels defines a subpopulation of highly invasive foam-cell macrophages

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.108.170548

关键词

atherosclerosis; tissue inhibitors of matrix metalloproteinases; macrophages; foam cells; plaque vulnerability

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation [RG/09/006/27918, FS/07/053/24069] Funding Source: Medline
  2. British Heart Foundation [FS/07/053/24069] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective -An excess of metalloproteinases (MMPs) over tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) may favor atherosclerotic plaque rupture. We compared TIMP levels in nonfoamy and foam-cell macrophages (FCM) generated in vivo. Methods and Results -In vivo generated rabbit FCM exhibited 84% reduced TIMP-3 protein compared to nonfoamy macrophages, and immunocytochemistry revealed a TIMP-3 negative subset (28%). Strikingly, only TIMP-3 negative FCM invaded a synthetic basement membrane, and invasion was inhibited by exogenous TIMP-3. TIMP-3 negative FCM also had increased proliferation and apoptosis rates compared to TIMP-3 positive cells, which were retarded by exogenous TIMP-3; this also reduced gelatinolytic activity. TIMP-3 negative FCM were found at the base of advanced rabbit plaques and in the rupture-prone shoulders of human plaques. To explain the actions of low TIMP-3 we observed a 26-fold increase in MT1-MMP (MMP-14) protein in FCM. Adding an MT1-MMP neutralizing antibody reduced foam-cell invasion, apoptosis, and gelatinolytic activity. Furthermore, MT1-MMP overexpressing and TIMP-3 negative FCM were found at the same locations in atherosclerotic plaques. Conclusions -These results demonstrate that TIMP-3 is downregulated in a distinct subpopulation of FCM which have increased MMP-14. These cells are highly invasive and have increased proliferation and apoptosis, all properties expected to destabilise atherosclerotic plaques.

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