Sgarra Luca, Leo Valentina, Addabbo Francesco, Iacobazzi Dominga, Carratù Maria Rosaria, Montagnani Monica, Potenza Maria Assunta
Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari "Aldo Moro," Bari, Italy.
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 10;9(2):e88542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088542. eCollection 2014.
The angiotensin (Ang) and bradykinin (BK) tissue-system plays a pivotal role in post-conditioning, but the efficacy of angiotensin type 1 receptor (AT1R) blockers (ARBs) in post-ischemic strategies is still under investigation. We evaluated functional and morphological outcomes, together with activation of cytosolic RISK pathway kinases, in rat hearts subjected to losartan (LOS) or irbesartan (IRB) post-ischemic administration.
Isolated rat hearts underwent 30 min ischemia and 120 min reperfusion. Post-conditioning was obtained by intermittent (10 s/each) or continuous drug infusion during the first 3 min of reperfusion. Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), left ventricular developed pressure (dLVP), coronary flow (CF), and left ventricular infarct mass (IM) were measured together with the activation status of RISK kinases Akt, p42/44 MAPK and GSK3β.
When compared to hearts subjected to ischemia/reperfusion (iI/R) alone, continuous IRB or LOS administration did not significantly reduce total infarct mass (cIRB or cLOS vs. iI/R, p = 0.2). Similarly, intermittent IRB (iIRB) was not able to enhance cardioprotection. Conversely, intermittent LOS administration (iLOS) significantly ameliorated cardiac recovery (iLOS vs iI/R, p<0.01). Differences between iLOS and iIRB persisted under continuous blockade of AT2R (iLOS+cPD vs. iIRB+cPD, p<0.05). Interestingly, iLOS cardioprotection was lost when BK2R was simultaneously blocked (iLOS+cHOE vs. iI/R, p = 0.6), whereas concurrent administration of iBK and iIRB replicated iLOS effects (iIRB+iBK vs. iLOS, p = 0.7). At the molecular level, iIRB treatment did not significantly activate RISK kinases, whereas both iLOS and iBK treatments were associated with activation of the Akt/GSK3β branch of the RISK pathways (p<0.05 vs. iI/R, for both).
Our results suggest that intermittent losartan is effective in mediating post-conditioning cardioprotection, whereas irbesartan is not. The infarct mass reduction by intermittent losartan seem mainly related on its specific ability to modulate BK2R, and only modestly associated on AT1R blocking properties.
血管紧张素(Ang)和缓激肽(BK)组织系统在缺血后处理中起关键作用,但1型血管紧张素受体(AT1R)阻滞剂(ARB)在缺血后策略中的疗效仍在研究中。我们评估了在缺血后给予氯沙坦(LOS)或厄贝沙坦(IRB)的大鼠心脏的功能和形态学结果,以及细胞溶质RISK途径激酶的激活情况。
分离的大鼠心脏经历30分钟缺血和120分钟再灌注。通过在再灌注的前3分钟内间歇性(每次10秒)或持续药物输注来实现缺血后处理。测量左心室舒张末期压力(LVEDP)、左心室发展压力(dLVP)、冠状动脉血流量(CF)和左心室梗死质量(IM),以及RISK激酶Akt、p42/44 MAPK和GSK3β的激活状态。
与单独接受缺血/再灌注(iI/R)的心脏相比,持续给予IRB或LOS并没有显著降低总梗死质量(cIRB或cLOS与iI/R相比,p = 0.2)。同样,间歇性给予IRB(iIRB)也不能增强心脏保护作用。相反,间歇性给予LOS(iLOS)显著改善了心脏恢复情况(iLOS与iI/R相比,p<0.01)。在持续阻断AT2R的情况下,iLOS和iIRB之间的差异仍然存在(iLOS+cPD与iIRB+cPD相比,p<0.05)。有趣的是,当BK2R同时被阻断时,iLOS的心脏保护作用丧失(iLOS+cHOE与iI/R相比,p = 0.6),而同时给予iBK和iIRB可重现iLOS的效果(iIRB+iBK与iLOS相比,p = 0.7)。在分子水平上,iIRB治疗并没有显著激活RISK激酶,而iLOS和iBK治疗均与RISK途径的Akt/GSK3β分支的激活有关(两者与iI/R相比,p<0.05)。
我们的结果表明,间歇性氯沙坦在介导缺血后处理心脏保护方面有效,而厄贝沙坦则无效。间歇性氯沙坦减少梗死质量似乎主要与其调节BK2R的特定能力有关,而与AT1R阻断特性的关联较小。