4.8 Article

Roles of angiotensin II type 2 receptor stimulation associated with selective angiotensin II type 1 receptor blockade with valsartan in the improvement of inflammation-induced vascular injury

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 104, 期 22, 页码 2716-2721

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hc4601.099404

关键词

angiotensin; arteries; inflammation; receptors; remodeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-To investigate the effect of angiotensin (Ang) II type I receptor (AT,) blocker on vascular remodeling and explore the possibility of the involvement of Ang II type 2 receptor (AT(2)) stimulation in this process, we examined the effects of the selective AT, blocker valsartan on the vascular injury in wild-type (Agtr2+) and AT-null (Agtr2-) mice. Methods and Results-Neointima formation and the proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) induced by cuff placement on the femoral artery were greater in Agtr2- mice than those in Agtr2+ mice. Treatment of mice with valsartan at a dose of 1 mg (.) kg(-1) (.) d(-1), which did not influence systolic blood pressure, significantly decreased neointima formation and the proliferation of VSMCs, whereas the valsartan was less effective in Agtr2- mice. Moreover, cuff placement increased the expression of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1); inflammatory cytokines such is tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-10; and infiltration of CD45-positive leukocytes and macrophages in the injured arteries and further enhanced them in Agtr2- mice, suggesting the antagonistic effects of AT(1) and AT(2) for vascular inflammation. Valsartan attenuated the expression of MCP-1, TNF-alpha, IL-6, IL-1 beta, and infiltration of leukocytes and macrophages in the injured arteries; however, these effects of valsartan were less prominent in Agtr2- mice. Conclusions-These results suggest that the stimulation of the AT, receptor after AT(1) blockade is important in the improvement of the inflammatory vascular injury.

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