4.7 Article

Reactive Oxygen Species Signaling Facilitates FOXO-3a/FBXO-Dependent Vascular BK Channel β1 Subunit Degradation in Diabetic Mice

期刊

DIABETES
卷 61, 期 7, 页码 1860-1868

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db11-1658

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Diabetes Association [JFA-07-39, 1-12-BS-119]
  2. National Institutes of Health [HL-74180, HL-080118]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activity of the vascular large conductance Ca2+-activated K (BK) channel is tightly regulated by its accessory beta(1) subunit (BK-beta(1)). Downregulation of BK-beta(1) expression in diabetic vessels is associated with upregulation of the forkhead box O subfamily transcription factor-3a (FOXO-3a) dependent F-box only protein (FBXO) expression. However, the upstream signaling regulating this process is unclear. Overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is a common finding in diabetic vasculopathy. We hypothesized that ROS signaling cascade facilitates the FOXO-3a/FBXO-mediated BK-beta(1) degradation and leads to diabetic BK channel dysfunction. Using cellular biology, patch clamp, and videomicroscopy techniques, we found that reduced BK-beta(1) expression in streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic mouse arteries and in human coronary smooth muscle cells (SMCs) cultured with high glucose was attributable to an increase in protein kinase C (PKC)-beta and NADPH oxidase expressions and accompanied by attenuation of Akt phosphorylation and augmentation of atrogin-1 expression. Treatment with ruboxistaurin (a PKC beta inhibitor) or with GW501516 (a peroxisome proliferator activated receptor 8 activator) reduced atrogin-1 expression and restored BK channel-mediated coronary vasodilation in diabetic mice. Our results suggested that oxidative stress inhibited Akt signaling and facilitated the FOXO-3a/FBXO-dependent BK-beta(1) degradation in diabetic vessels. Suppression of the FOXO-3a/FBXO pathway prevented vascular BK-beta(1) degradation and protected coronary function in diabetes. Diabetes 61:1860-1868, 2012

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