Literature DB >> 12160957

Remote preconditioning by infrarenal occlusion of the aorta protects the heart from infarction: a newly identified non-neuronal but PKC-dependent pathway.

Christof Weinbrenner1, Manfred Nelles, Nicole Herzog, László Sárváry, Ruth H Strasser.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS AND
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12160957     DOI: 10.1016/s0008-6363(02)00446-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cardiovasc Res        ISSN: 0008-6363            Impact factor:   10.787


  36 in total

1.  New insights into adenosine-mediated myocardial protection.

Authors:  Robert D Lasley
Journal:  Br J Pharmacol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 8.739

2.  Peripheral nociception associated with surgical incision elicits remote nonischemic cardioprotection via neurogenic activation of protein kinase C signaling.

Authors:  W Keith Jones; Guo-Chang Fan; Siyun Liao; Jun-Ming Zhang; Yang Wang; Neal L Weintraub; Evangelia G Kranias; Jo El Schultz; John Lorenz; Xiaoping Ren
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2009-09-15       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 3.  Cardioprotection by remote ischemic conditioning and its signal transduction.

Authors:  Petra Kleinbongard; Andreas Skyschally; Gerd Heusch
Journal:  Pflugers Arch       Date:  2016-12-07       Impact factor: 3.657

4.  Doxycycline ameliorates the susceptibility to aortic lesions in a mouse model for the vascular type of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome.

Authors:  Wilfried Briest; Timothy K Cooper; Hyun-Jin Tae; Melissa Krawczyk; Nazli B McDonnell; Mark I Talan
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2011-03-01       Impact factor: 4.030

Review 5.  Remote ischemic preconditioning for myocardial protection: update on mechanisms and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Rabia Gill; Robin Kuriakose; Zachary M Gertz; Fadi N Salloum; Lei Xi; Rakesh C Kukreja
Journal:  Mol Cell Biochem       Date:  2015-01-01       Impact factor: 3.396

Review 6.  Remote ischemic conditioning.

Authors:  Gerd Heusch; Hans Erik Bøtker; Karin Przyklenk; Andrew Redington; Derek Yellon
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Ischemic postconditioning does not provide cardioprotection from long-term ischemic injury in isolated male or female rat hearts.

Authors:  Daniel S Lee; Gregory E Steinbaugh; Ricardo Quarrie; Fuchun Yang; M A Hassan Talukder; Jay L Zweier; Juan A Crestanello
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2010-09-26       Impact factor: 2.192

8.  Ischemic post-conditioning reduces infarct size of the in vivo rat heart: role of PI3-K, mTOR, GSK-3beta, and apoptosis.

Authors:  Claudia Wagner; Diana Tillack; Gregor Simonis; Ruth H Strasser; Christof Weinbrenner
Journal:  Mol Cell Biochem       Date:  2010-01-07       Impact factor: 3.396

9.  Remote vs. local ischaemic preconditioning in the rat heart: infarct limitation, suppression of ischaemic arrhythmia and the role of reactive oxygen species.

Authors:  Michael M Galagudza; Dmitry L Sonin; Timur D Vlasov; Dmitry I Kurapeev; Eugene V Shlyakhto
Journal:  Int J Exp Pathol       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 1.925

10.  Using hormetic strategies to improve ischemic preconditioning and postconditioning against stroke.

Authors:  Heng Zhao; Sungpil Joo; Weiying Xie; Xunming Ji
Journal:  Int J Physiol Pathophysiol Pharmacol       Date:  2013-05-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.