4.2 Article

Rapamycin protects heart from ischemia/reperfusion injury independent of autophagy by activating PI3 kinase-Akt pathway and mitochondria K-ATP channel

期刊

PHARMAZIE
卷 65, 期 10, 页码 760-765

出版社

GOVI-VERLAG PHARMAZEUTISCHER VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1691/ph.2010.0576

关键词

-

资金

  1. Heilongjiang Natural Science Foundation [ZJY0707-01]
  2. Harbin Special Fundation Program for Science and Technology innovative personnel [2010RFXXS050]
  3. Heilongjiang health department [2009-048]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate potential roles of rapamycin, a macrocytic lactone produced by Streptomyces hygroscopicus, in myocardial ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury. Methods: Male Wistar rats were pretreated with three different doses of rapamycin (0.25, 2, and 5 mg/kg). Then, isolated rat hearts were exposed to 40 min of global ischemia followed by 120 min of reperfusion using a Langendorff apparatus. Western blot analysis was used to examine changes in the expression levels of ERK1/2 and Akt kinases and LC3 -II/I (a marker of autophagy). The area of myocardial infarction and cardiac function were evaluated. Results: Our results demonstrated that rapamycin mediates cardioprotection in a dose-dependent manner in isolated rat hearts during myocardial I/R injury. Significant a autophagy was induced by rapamycin during I/R. Both, the mitochondrial K-ATP-channel blocker 5-hydroxydecanoate (5-HD) and the PI3K inhibitor LY294002 (LY) abolished the protection afforded by rapamycin completely, while the inhibitors alone did not influence the infarct size in control hearts. However, the ERK1/2 inhibitor PD98059(PD) and the blocker of autophagy 3-methyladenine (3-MA) had no effect on rapamycin-mediated cardioprtection. Conclusions: Cardioprotection afforded by rapamycin involves the PI3K pathway and the activation of mitochondrial K-ATP-channels, but is independent of rapamycin-induced autophagy. This study may have significant impact on clinical practice.

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

4.2
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