4.8 Article

Impaired endothelial regulation of ventricular relaxation in cardiac hypertrophy - Role of reactive oxygen species and NADPH oxidase

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 104, 期 24, 页码 2967-2974

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc4901.100382

关键词

nitric oxide; hypertrophy; endothelium; free radicals; myocardial contraction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Endothelium-derived nitric oxide (NO) selectively enhances myocardial relaxation. In experimental left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), this endothelium-dependent LV relaxant response is impaired despite a preserved response to exogenous NO. We investigated the potential role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in this defect. Methods and Results-Short-term treatment with the antioxidants vitamin C (10 mu mol/L) or deferoxamine (500 mu mol/L) restored LV relaxant responses to the NO agonists bradykinin (10 nmol/L) and substance P (100 nmol/L) in isolated ejecting hearts of aortic-banded guinea pigs. Substance P decreased the time to onset of LV relaxation (tdP/dt(min)) by -6.8 +/-1.7 ms in the presence of vitamin C and by -8.9 +/-2.2 ms im the presence of deferoxamine compared with -0.8 +/-2.2 ms in the absence of antioxidants (P <0.05 either antioxidant versus control). A similar restoration of relaxant response to substance P was observed in the presence of the superoxide dismutase mimetic. Mn(III)tetrakis 1-methyl-4-pyridyl)porphyrin pentachloride (10 mu mol/L). but not with tetrahydrobiopterin or L-arginine. Protein expression of the NADPH oxidase subunits gp91-phox and p67-phox and myocardial NADPH oxidase activity were significantly increased (P <0.05) in the banded group compared with shams. Conclusions-An increase in ROS, most likely derived at least in part from NADPH oxidase, is responsible for the impaired endothelial regulation of LV relaxation in LVH. These are the first data to potentially link increased NADPH oxidase-derived ROS with a defect in cardiac contractile function in a pathological setting.

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