4.7 Article

B-RAF and its novel negative regulator reticulocalbin 1 (RCN1) modulates cardiomyocyte hypertrophy

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 88-96

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvu024

关键词

Cardiomyocyte hypertrophy; B-RAF; MAPK; Reticulocalbin 1; RCN1

资金

  1. EU [LSHM-CT-2005-018833, EUGeneHeart]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG [KFO 155 SE 1117/1-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Activation of the kinase RAF and its downstream targets leads to cardiomyocyte hypertrophy. It has been hypothesized that B-RAF might be the main activator of MEK in various cell types. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the role of B-RAF and its modulating factors in cardiomyocyte hypertrophy. Methods and results Neonatal rat cardiomyocytes were pre-treated with and without the specific B-RAF inhibitor SB590885 and then stimulated with phenylephrine to induce hypertrophy. Inhibition of B-RAF completely impeded the hypertrophic response and led to a significant reduction of MEK1/2 phosphorylation. By applying a eukaryotic cDNA expression screen, based on a dual-luciferase reporter assay for B-RAF activity measurement, we identified RCN1 as a new negative modulator of B-RAF activity. Adenovirus-mediated overexpression of reticulocalbin 1 (RCN1) completely impeded phenylephrine-induced hypertrophy and led to significantly reduced MEK1/2 phosphorylation. Conversely, adenoviral knockdown of RCN1 with a specific synthetic miRNA induced cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and significantly increased MEK1/2 phosphorylation. Conclusions In summary, our results show that the inhibition of B-RAF abolishes cardiomyocyte hypertrophy and we identified RCN1 as novel negative modulator of cardiomyocyte hypertrophy by inhibition of the mitogen-activated protein kinase signalling cascade. Our results show that B-RAF kinase activity is essential for cardiac hypertrophy and RCN1, its newly identified negative regulator, abolishes hypertrophic response of cardiomyocytes in vitro.

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