4.0 Article

The effect of phenotype on mechanical stretch-induced vascular smooth muscle cell apoptosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF VASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 229-237

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000091102

关键词

vascular smooth muscle cells; differentiation; mechanical; stretch; Bcl-2-associated death factor; apoptosis

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK065306] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK65306] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study evaluated mechanical stretch-induced apoptosis in swine vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) of different phenotypes. We demonstrated that differentiated VSMC express a greater level of Bcl-2-associated death factor (BAD) and have a significant cell loss when exposed to mechanical stretch (10% elongation, 1 Hz) for 24 h. We further demonstrated that apoptosis was significantly increased only in differentiated VSMC exposed to mechanical stretch. To test the hypothesis that the intracellular level of BAD in VSMC determines its response to mechanical stretch-induced apoptosis, we examined whether BAD expression was upregulated by mechanical stretch-induced apoptosis and was associated with the increase in the apoptosis level of differentiated VSMC. When exposed to mechanical stretch, the expression of BAD in differentiated VSMC was elevated at 1 h and remained at higher levels during the application of stretch (24 h). In contrast, Bcl-2 expression was suppressed during the application of stretch. Moreover, the proapoptotic function of BAD was inhibited by overexpression of Bcl-2 through transient transfection of VSMC with pCEP4-Bcl-2 or incubation of VSMC with vascular epithelial growth factor. These results suggest that mechanical stretch-induced VSMC apoptosis is phenotype dependent. The higher levels of apoptosis of differentiated VSMC upon mechanical stretch were, at least in part, dependent on their intrinsic level of BAD. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

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

4.0
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