Weinbrenner Christof, Nelles Manfred, Herzog Nicole, Sárváry László, Strasser Ruth H
Department of Cardiology, Medical Clinic II, University of Technology, P.O. Box 95, Fetscherstr. 76, D-01307 Dresden, Germany.
Cardiovasc Res. 2002 Aug 15;55(3):590-601. doi: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00446-7.
Ischemic preconditioning is a powerful mechanism in reducing infarct size of the heart. Protection can be performed either by an ischemic stimulus of the heart itself or by ischemia of an organ distant to the heart. To address the question whether this remote preconditioning is transduced by neuronal or humoral factors an in situ model of infrarenal occlusion of the aorta (IOA) in the rat was developed. Furthermore, the signal transduction pathways of classical and remote preconditioning regarding protein kinase C, which is one of the key enzymes in classical preconditioning, were compared.
Controls (30 min regional ischemia followed by 2 h of reperfusion) had an infarct size of 62+/-5% whereas classical preconditioning reduced it to 10+/-3% of the risk zone (P< or =0.001). Fifteen minutes IOA without reperfusion of the aorta had no influence on infarct size (52+/-4%). When, however, IOA was performed for 15, 10, or 5 min, respectively, followed by a 10-min reperfusion period the size of myocardial infarction decreased significantly. This decrease was dependent on the duration of IOA (18+/-3%, 37+/-8%, 42+/-2%, respectively; P< or =0.001 for the time-dependent linear trend in decrease of infarct size). Fifteen minutes IOA showed the strongest protection which was comparable to classical preconditioning (18+/-3%, P< or =0.001 vs. control). Blockade of the nervous pathway by 20 mg/kg hexamethonium could not inhibit the protection afforded by IOA (14+/-4%). Using chelerythrine, a selective protein kinase C-inhibitor, at a dose of 5 mg/kg body weight, protection from remote (68+/-4%, P< or =0.001 vs. 15 min IOA followed by 10 min of reperfusion without chelerythrine) as well as from classical preconditioning (56+/-5%, P< or =0.001) was completely blocked.
Protection of the heart by remote preconditioning using IOA is as powerful as classical preconditioning. Both protection methods share protein kinase C as a common element in their signal transduction pathways. Since hexamethonium could not block the protection from IOA and a reperfusion period has to be necessarily interspaced between the IOA and the infarct inducing ischemia of the heart, a neuronal signal transmission from the remote area to the heart can be excluded with certainty. A humoral factor must be responsible for the remote protection. Interestingly the production of the protecting factor is dependent on the duration of the ischemia of the lower limb. The protecting substance, which must be upstream of protein kinase C, remains to be identified.
缺血预处理是减少心脏梗死面积的一种强大机制。保护作用可通过心脏自身的缺血刺激或心脏远处器官的缺血来实现。为了探讨这种远程预处理是由神经还是体液因素介导的,建立了大鼠肾下腹主动脉闭塞(IOA)的原位模型。此外,还比较了经典预处理和远程预处理中关于蛋白激酶C的信号转导途径,蛋白激酶C是经典预处理中的关键酶之一。
对照组(30分钟局部缺血后再灌注2小时)梗死面积为危险区的62±5%,而经典预处理将其降至10±3%(P≤0.001)。15分钟的IOA且主动脉无再灌注对梗死面积无影响(52±4%)。然而,当分别进行15、10或5分钟的IOA,随后再灌注10分钟时,心肌梗死面积显著减小。这种减小取决于IOA的持续时间(分别为18±3%、37±8%、42±2%;梗死面积减小的时间依赖性线性趋势P≤0.001)。15分钟的IOA显示出最强的保护作用,与经典预处理相当(18±3%,与对照组相比P≤0.001)。20mg/kg六甲铵阻断神经通路并不能抑制IOA提供的保护作用(14±4%)。使用5mg/kg体重的选择性蛋白激酶C抑制剂白屈菜红碱,远程预处理(68±4%,与15分钟IOA后再灌注10分钟且未用白屈菜红碱相比P≤0.001)以及经典预处理(56±5%,P≤0.001)的保护作用均被完全阻断。
使用IOA进行远程预处理对心脏的保护作用与经典预处理一样强大。两种保护方法在其信号转导途径中都有蛋白激酶C这一共同元素。由于六甲铵不能阻断IOA的保护作用,且在IOA和诱导心脏梗死的缺血之间必须有一个再灌注期,因此可以确定排除从远程区域到心脏的神经信号传递。一种体液因素必定是远程保护的原因。有趣的是,保护因子的产生取决于下肢缺血的持续时间。必须位于蛋白激酶C上游的保护物质仍有待确定。