4.7 Article

Distinction in genetic determinants for injury-induced neointimal hyperplasia and diet-induced atherosclerosis in inbred mice

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000017994.77066.75

关键词

mouse genetics; restenosis; arteriosclerosis; smooth muscle cells

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-61332, R01 HL061332] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [U24 DK-59630] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Five inbred strains of mice differing in susceptibility to diet-induced atherosclerosis were compared for neointimal hyperplasia after endothelial denudation with an epoxy resin-modified catheter probe. Results showed that all animals responded similarly to the arterial injury, with increased medial area and thickness after 14 days. In contrast, a significant strain-specific difference in neointimal formation after injury was observed. The atherosclerosis-susceptible C57L/J mice were also susceptible to injury-induced neointimal hyperplasia, and the C3H mice were resistant to both forms of vascular diseases. The 129/Sv mice, which displayed an intermediate level of diet-induced atherosclerosis, also displayed an intermediate level of injury-induced neointimal hyperplasia. Interestingly, the atherosclerosis-susceptible C57BL/6 mice were resistant to neointimal hyperplasia after endothelial denudation, whereas the atherosclerosis-resistant FVB/N mice were susceptible, displaying massive neointimal hyperplasia after arterial injury. All (C57L/JxC57BL/6)F-1 hybrid mice were resistant to injury-induced neointimal hyperplasia. Moreover, N-2 mice generated from backcrossing the F-1 hybrid mice to the susceptible C57L/J mice displayed a range of arterial response to injury, spanning the most severe to the most resistant phenotype. These results indicate that injury-induced neointimal hyperplasia and diet-induced atherosclerosis are controlled by distinct sets of genes; the former appeared to be determined by recessive genes at greater than or equal to2 loci.

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