4.7 Article

Targeted disruption of the protein kinase C epsilon gene abolishes the infarct size reduction that follows ischaemic preconditioning of isolated buffer-perfused mouse hearts

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 672-680

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6363(02)00325-5

关键词

preconditioning; protein kinases; ischemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Activation of protein kinase C (PKC) isoforms is associated with the cardioprotective effect of early ischaemic preconditioning (IP). PKC consists of at least 10 different isoforms, encoded by separate genes, which mediate distinct physiological functions. Although the PKC-epsilon isoform has been implicated in preconditioning, uncertainty remains. We investigated whether preconditioning still occurs in a mouse line lacking cardiac PKC-epsilon protein due to a targeted disruption within the pkc-epsilon allele. Methods: The isolated buffer-perfused hearts from knockout mice lacking PKC-epsilon (-/-) and sibling heterozygous mice (+/-), with a normal PKC-epsilon complement, were preconditioned by 4x4 min ischaemia/6 min reperfusion. Hearts then underwent 45 min of global ischaemia followed by 1.5 h of reperfusion. Results: In PKC-epsilon (+/-) hearts ischaemic preconditioning reduced infarction volume as a percentage of myocardial volume (24.3+/-4.5 vs. 41.3+/-4.7%, P<0.001). In contrast, in PKC-epsilon (-/-) hearts preconditioning failed to diminish infarction (36.4+/-2.9 vs. 38.8+/-4.5%). Surprisingly however, although preconditioning did not reduce infaret size, it did enhance contractile recovery in PKC-epsilon (-/-) mice (43.1+/-3.9 vs. 24.9+/-5.1%, P<0.05), similar to the level seen in PKC-epsilon (-/-) hearts (35.2.+/-3.9 vs. 20.9+/-5.0%, P<0.05). Conclusions: These data suggest that PKC-epsilon is essential for the reduction in infarction that follows early ischaemic preconditioning, but is not associated with the improvement in functional recovery. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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