4.7 Article

Angiotensin II memory contributes to the development of hypertension and vascular injury via activation of NADPH oxidase

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 149, 期 -, 页码 18-24

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2016.02.037

关键词

Angiotensin II; Hypertension; NADPH oxidases; Free radicals

资金

  1. 973 program [2012CB517802]
  2. China National Natural Science Funds [81330003, 81400247]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Activation of the rennin-angiotensin systemplays a critical role in the development of hypertension and its complication. Our previous study has demonstrated that a cellular memory is involved in angiotensin II (Ang II)-induced cardiac hypertrophy. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of reversal of high Ang II to normal condition on hypertension and vascular damage. Main methods: Wild-type male mice were randomly divided into five groups. The vascular function, inflammation, oxidative stress and angiogenesis were examined by aortic ring relaxation studies, histological analysis, real-time PCR and Western blot analysis. Key findings: We found that continuous high Ang II infusion for 3 weeks (Ang II 3w) significantly elevated blood pressure, increased aortic wall thickness, collagen deposition, inflammation, oxidative stress, vascular function and activation of p38 MAPK, JNK1/2, STAT3 and NF-kappa B pathways in mouse aorta compared with saline group. High Ang II exposure for 2 weeks followed by saline for 1 week (Ang II 2 + 1w) failed to reverse these alterations. This phenomenon was named metabolic memory (or persistent effect). However, addition of NADPH oxidase inhibitor apocynin during saline infusion (Ang II 2 + 1w + Apo) markedly ameliorated such deleterious effects. Significance: These results showed that we report the first that persistent effect or metabolicmemory of angiotensin II through NADPH oxidase-mediated oxidative stress plays important roles in hypertension and vascular injury. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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