4.6 Article

Impaired endothelial function in C-reactive protein overexpressing mice

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 201, 期 2, 页码 318-325

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2008.02.034

关键词

C-reactive protein; Endothelium; Nitric oxide; Inflammatory markers

资金

  1. Heart & Stroke Foundation of Ontario [NA 6115]
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [77711]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence suggests that the inflammatory biomarker, C-reactive protein (CRP), may play a causal role in the development and progression of atherothrombosis. Since endothelial dysfunction is all early and integral component of atherosclerosis, we hypothesized that endothelial homeostasis would be impaired in CRP-overexpressing CRP transgenic (CRPtg) mice. Male CRPtg and wild-type mice were injected thrice over 2 weeks with vehicle Or turpentine to induce the inflammation-sensitive CRP transgene. Serum human CRP levels in turpentine-treated CRPtg mice was 276.28 +/- 95.7 mu g/ml. Human CRP was undetectable in the sera of wild-type mice and present at only low levels (1.41 +/- 0.2 mu g/ml) in vehicle-treated CRPtg mice (n = 6-8 mice/group). Aortic segments from turpentine-induced CRP- controls (57.1 +/- 9.5% vs. 85.0 +/- 5.0%, P < 0.05 n =6). Nitric oxide release as well as phosphorylated eNOS protein expression front isolated aortic segments of CRPtg, mice overexpressing CRP were markedly reduced compared to that from vehicle-treated control. Masson's trichrome staining revealed increased perivascular fibrosis in CRP-overexpressing CRPtg mice. CRP overexpression was also associated with augmented aortic endothelial staining for VCAM-1 and MCP-1 and enhanced macrophage infiltration. Mice overexpressing, the human CRP gene exhibit endothelial dysfunction, possibly via reduced NO bioavailability. with resultant changes in vascular structure. These data further support a role for CRP in mediating, endothelial dysfunction. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.6
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