4.7 Article

Cardiac energetics are abnormal in Friedreich ataxia patients in the absence of cardiac dysfunction and hypertrophy:: An in vivo 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy study

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 111-119

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/S0008-6363(01)00357-1

关键词

energy metabolism; free radicals; hypertrophy; mitochondria; oxidative phosphorylation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Friedreich ataxia (FRDA), the commonest form of inherited ataxia, is often associated with cardiac hypertrophy and cardiac dysfunction is the most frequent cause of death. In 97%, FRDA is caused by a homoplasmic GAA triplet expansion in the FRDA gene on chromosome 9q13 that results in deficiency of frataxin, a mitochondrial protein of unknown function. There is evidence that frataxin deficiency leads to a severe defect of mitochondrial respiration associated with abnormal mitochondrial iron accumulation. To determine whether bioenergetics deficit underlies the cardiac involvement in Friedreich ataxia (FRDA) we measured cardiac phosphocreatine to ATP ratio non-invasively in FRDA patients. Methods and results: Eighteen FRDA patients and 18 sex- and age-matched controls were studied using phosphorus MR spectroscopy and echocardiography. Left ventricular hypertrophy was present in eight FRDA patients while fractional shortening was normal in all. Cardiac PCr/ATP in FRDA patients as a group was reduced to 60% of the normal mean (P <0.0001). In the sub-group of patients with no cardiac hypertrophy PCr/ATP was also significantly reduced (P <0.0001). Conclusion: Cardiac bioenergetics, measured in vivo, is abnormal in FRDA patients in the absence of any discernible deterioration in cardiac contractile performance. The altered bioenergetics found in FRDA patients without left ventricle hypertrophy implies that cardiac metabolic dysfunction in FRDA precedes hypertrophy and is likely to play a role in its development. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.7
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