4.8 Article

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase is activated in subjects at risk of developing type 2 diabetes and is associated with impaired vascular reactivity

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 106, 期 21, 页码 2680-2686

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000038365.78031.9C

关键词

diabetes mellitus; endothelium; acetylcholine; microcirculation

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR 01032] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [1R01HL/DK71215-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-We have previously shown that endothelial function is impaired not only in diabetes but also in subjects at risk of developing type 2 diabetes. We hypothesized that changes in the expression or activity of the endothelial isoform of nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE), and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) are related to this impairment. Methods and Results-We included a control group of 21 healthy subjects, a group of 22 healthy individuals with parental history of type 2 diabetes, a group of 23 subjects with impaired glucose tolerance, and a group of 21 type 2 diabetic patients. Two 2-mm forearm skin biopsies were taken from each participant and used for measurements. The percentage of PARP-positive endothelial nuclei was higher in the group with parental history of type 2 diabetes and diabetic patients compared with the controls (P<0.001). Immunoreactivity for nitrotyrosine (a marker of reactive nitrogen species) was higher in the diabetic group compared with all other groups (P<0.01). No differences in the expression of eNOS and RAGE were found among all 4 groups. The polymorphism of the eNOS gene was also studied and was not found to influence eNOS expression or microvascular functional measurements. Conclusions-PARP activation is present in healthy subjects at risk of developing diabetes as well as in established type 2 diabetic patients, and it is associated with impairments in the vascular reactivity in the skin microcirculation.

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

4.8
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