4.6 Review

Impaired calcium handling and mitochondrial metabolic dysfunction as early markers of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

期刊

ARCHIVES OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
卷 665, 期 -, 页码 166-174

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.abb.2019.03.006

关键词

Calcium; Mitochondria; Metabolism; Myofilament calcium; Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [APP1143203, 101930, APP1117366, APP1103782]
  2. Raine Medical Research Foundation [RPG50]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a primary myocardial disorder, characterised by myocyte remodeling, disorganisation of sarcomeric proteins, impaired energy metabolism and altered cardiac contractility. Gene mutations encoding cardiac contractile proteins account for 60% of HCM aetiology. Current drug therapy including L-type calcium channel antagonists, are used to manage symptoms in patients with overt HCM, but no treatment exists that can reverse or prevent the cardiomyopathy. Design of effective drug therapy will require a clear understanding of the early pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. Numerous studies have investigated specific aspects of HCM pathophysiology. This review brings these findings together, in order to develop a holistic understanding of the early pathophysiological mechanisms of the disease. We focus on gene mutations in cardiac myosin binding protein-C, beta-cardiac myosin heavy chain, cardiac troponin I, and cardiac troponin T, that comprise the majority of all HCM sarcomeric gene mutations. We find that although some similarities exist, each mutation leads to mutation-specific alterations in calcium handling, myofilament calcium sensitivity and mitochondrial metabolic function. This may contribute to the observed clinical phenotypic variability in sarcomeric-related HCM. An understanding of early mutation-specific mechanisms of the disease may provide useful markers of disease progression, and inform therapeutic design.

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