4.6 Article

Matrix metalloproteinase-9 gene deletion facilitates angiogenesis after myocardial infarction

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00457.2005

关键词

leukocytes; remodeling; imaging

资金

  1. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R29HL045024, R01HL065273, R03HL097012, R01HL075360, F32HL010337, R01HL065662] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL075360, HL-75360, HL-65273, HL-97012, HL-45024, HL-10337, HL-65662] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [P01-48788] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are postulated to be necessary for during wound healing. MMP- 9 deletion alters remodeling postmyocardial infarction (post-MI), but whether and to what degree MMP-9 affects neovascularization post-MI is unknown. Neovascularization was evaluated in wild-type (WT; n = 63) and MMP-9 null (n = 55) mice at 7-days post-MI. Despite similar infarct sizes, MMP-9 deletion improved left ventricular function as evaluated by hemodynamic analysis. Blood vessel quantity and quality were evaluated by three independent studies. First, vessel density was increased in the infarct of MMP-9 null mice compared with WT, as quantified by Griffonia (Bandeiraea) simplicifolia lectin I (GSL-I) immunohistochemistry. Second, preexisting vessels, stained in vivo with FITC-labeled GSL-I pre-MI, were present in the viable but not MI region. Third, a technetium-99m-labeled peptide (NC100692), which selectively binds to activated alpha(v)beta(3)-integrin in angiogenic vessels, was injected into post- MI mice. Relative NC100692 activity in myocardial segments with diminished perfusion (0 - 40% nonischemic) was higher in MMP-9 null than in WT mice (383 +/- 162% vs. 250 +/- 118%, respectively; P = 0.002). The unique finding of this study was that MMP-9 deletion stimulated, rather than impaired, neovascularization in remodeling myocardium. Thus targeted strategies to inhibit MMP-9 early post-MI will likely not impair the angiogenic response.

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

4.6
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