4.7 Article

Mouse strain determines the outcome of wound healing after myocardial infarction

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 84, 期 2, 页码 273-282

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvp207

关键词

Myocardial infarction; Inflammatory cells; Infarct rupture; Heart failure; Genetic background

资金

  1. CARIM, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Our objective was to study the effect of the genetic background on the wound healing process after myocardial infarction (MI) in mice. Methods and results MI was induced in five different mouse strains (BalbC, C57B16, FVB, 129S6, and Swiss). At 3, 14, and 28 days after MI, cardiac dimensions were monitored by echocardiography and histotogy, whereas cardiac function was determined by direct intraventricular pressure measurements (dP/ dt). Furthermore, matrix metalloproteinases were measured by zymography, and mRNA expression by quantitative PCR. Infarct rupture, which typically occurred at 3-6 days post-MI, was most frequent in 129S6 mice (62%), followed by C57B16 (36%), FVB (29%), Swiss (23%), and BalbC (5%). The high incidence of infarct rupture in 129S6 mice was associated with high systolic blood pressure and increased influx of inflammatory cells. Cardiac dilatation was most marked in Swiss mice and least prominent in 129S6 mice. The degree of dilatation was associated with a reduced ejection fraction and decreased dP/dt values at 14 and 28 days post-MI. At day 14 and 28 post-MI, secondary thinning of the infarct area was marked in BalbC, FVB, and Swiss, but absent in C57Bl6 and 129S6 mice. In the latter two groups, this was paralleled by the highest number of myofibroblasts at day 14 post-MI. Conclusion The outcome of infarct heating in mice strongly depends on genetic background. On the basis of our results, we suggest that for studies on infarct rupture, the 129S6 mouse is the background of choice, whereas BalbC and Swiss mice are the preferred models to study infarct thinning post-MI.

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