4.8 Article

Differential effects of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors p27Kip1, p21Cip1, and p16Ink4 on vascular smooth muscle cell proliferation

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 101, 期 17, 页码 2022-2025

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.17.2022

关键词

cell cycle; cell division; cyclin-dependent kinases

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-The cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CKIs) have different patterns of expression in vascular diseases. The Kip/Cip CKIs, p27(Kip1) and p21(Cip1), are upregulated during arterial repair and negatively regulate the growth of vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs). In contrast, the Ink CKI, p16(Ink4), is not expressed in vascular lesions. We hypothesized that a variation in the inactivation of cdk3 and cdk4 during the G(1) phase of the cell cycle by p27(Kip1), p21(Cip1) and p16(Ink4) leads to different effects on VSMC growth in vitro and in vivo. Methods and Results-The expression of p27(Kip1) and p21(Cip1), serum-stimulated VSMCs inactivated cdk2 and cdk4, leading to G(1) growth arrest, p16(Ink4) inhibited cdk4, but not cdk2, kinase activity, producing partial inhibition of VSMC growth in vitro. In an in vivo model of vascular injury, overexpression of p27(Kip1) reduced intimal VSMC proliferation by 52% (P<0.01) and the intima/media area ratio by 51% (P<0.005) after vascular injury and gene transfer to pig arteries, when compared with control arteries. p16(Ink4) was a weak inhibitor of intimal VSMC proliferation in injured arteries (P=NS), and it did not significantly reduce intima/media area ratios (P=NS), which is consistent with its minor effects on VSMC growth in vitro. Conclusions-p27(Kip1) and p21(Cip1) are potent inhibitors of VSMC growth compared with p16(Ink4) because of their different molecular mechanisms of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibition in the G(1) phase of the cell cycle. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the pathophysiology of vascular proliferative diseases and for the development of molecular therapies.

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