4.7 Article

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in cigarette smoke cause endothelial cell apoptosis by a phospholipase A2-dependent mechanism

期刊

FASEB JOURNAL
卷 16, 期 9, 页码 1463-+

出版社

FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL
DOI: 10.1096/fj.02-0092fje

关键词

phospholipase A(2); arachidonic acid; methylanthracene; benzo(a)pyrene; phenanthrene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Smoking is a major risk factor for endothelial cell injury and subsequent coronary artery disease. Epidemiological studies implicate the phospholipase A(2)/arachidonic acid cascade in the mechanism by which smoking causes heart disease. However, specific components of cigarette smoke that activate this pathway have not been identified. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons contained in cigarette smoke on phospholipase A(2) (PLA(2)) activity and apoptosis of human coronary artery endothelial cells. 1-methylanthracene (1-MA), phenanthrene (PA), and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P) caused significant release of H-3-arachidonate from endothelial cells. 1-MA and PA, but not B(a)P, also caused significant release of H-3-linoleic acid. Release of fatty acids from membrane phospholipids preceded the onset of apoptosis. 3 H-arachidonate release and apoptosis induced by 1-MA, B(a)P, and PA were inhibited by methylarachidonoyl-fluorophosphonate, an inhibitor of Groups IV and VI PLA(2)s. Bromoenol lactone, an inhibitor of Group VI enzymes, inhibited both H-3-arachidonate release and apoptosis induced by 1-MA and PA, but not B(a)P. MJ33, an inhibitor of the acidic calcium-independent PLA(2), attenuated H-3-arachidonate release and apoptosis by PA, but not 1-MA or B(a)P. The presence of Groups IV and VI and the acidic iPLA(2) in endothelial cells was demonstrated by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and Western analysis. These data suggest that 1-MA, B(a)P and PA induce apoptosis of endothelial cells by a mechanism that involves activation of these three distinct isoforms of PLA(2).

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