RATIONALE: coronary artery ligation to induce myocardial infarction (MI) in mice is typically performed by an invasive and time-consuming approach that requires ventilation and chest opening (classic method), often resulting in extensive tissue damage and high mortality. We developed a novel and rapid surgical method to induce MI that does not require ventilation. OBJECTIVE: the purpose of this study was to develop and comprehensively describe this method and directly compare it to the classic method. METHODS AND RESULTS: male C57/B6 mice were grouped into 4 groups: new method MI (MI-N) or sham (S-N) and classic method MI (MI-C) or sham (S-C). In the new method, heart was manually exposed without intubation through a small incision and MI was induced. In the classic method, MI was induced through a ventilated thoracotomy. Similar groups were used in an ischemia/reperfusion injury model. This novel MI procedure is rapid, with an average procedure time of 1.22 ± 0.05 minutes, whereas the classic method requires 23.2 ± 0.6 minutes per procedure. Surgical mortality was 3% in MI-N and 15.9% in MI-C. The rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in MI-N. The postsurgical levels of tumor necrosis factor-α and myeloperoxidase were lower in new method, indicating less inflammation. Overall, 28-day post-MI survival rate was 68% with MI-N and 48% with MI-C. Importantly, there was no difference in infarct size or post-MI cardiac function between the methods. CONCLUSIONS: this new rapid method of MI in mice represents a more efficient and less damaging model of myocardial ischemic injury compared with the classic method.
RATIONALE: coronary artery ligation to induce myocardial infarction (MI) in mice is typically performed by an invasive and time-consuming approach that requires ventilation and chest opening (classic method), often resulting in extensive tissue damage and high mortality. We developed a novel and rapid surgical method to induce MI that does not require ventilation. OBJECTIVE: the purpose of this study was to develop and comprehensively describe this method and directly compare it to the classic method. METHODS AND RESULTS: male C57/B6 mice were grouped into 4 groups: new method MI (MI-N) or sham (S-N) and classic method MI (MI-C) or sham (S-C). In the new method, heart was manually exposed without intubation through a small incision and MI was induced. In the classic method, MI was induced through a ventilated thoracotomy. Similar groups were used in an ischemia/reperfusion injury model. This novel MI procedure is rapid, with an average procedure time of 1.22 ± 0.05 minutes, whereas the classic method requires 23.2 ± 0.6 minutes per procedure. Surgical mortality was 3% in MI-N and 15.9% in MI-C. The rate of arrhythmia was significantly lower in MI-N. The postsurgical levels of tumor necrosis factor-α and myeloperoxidase were lower in new method, indicating less inflammation. Overall, 28-day post-MI survival rate was 68% with MI-N and 48% with MI-C. Importantly, there was no difference in infarct size or post-MI cardiac function between the methods. CONCLUSIONS: this new rapid method of MI in mice represents a more efficient and less damaging model of myocardial ischemic injury compared with the classic method.
Authors: Hui-Rong Liu; Erhe Gao; Aihua Hu; Ling Tao; Yan Qu; Patrick Most; Walter J Koch; Theodore A Christopher; Bernard L Lopez; Emad S Alnemri; Antonis S Zervos; Xin L Ma Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-12-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ling Tao; Erhe Gao; Xiangying Jiao; Yuexing Yuan; Shuzhuang Li; Theodore A Christopher; Bernard L Lopez; Walter Koch; Lawrence Chan; Barry J Goldstein; Xin L Ma Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-03-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Yajing Wang; Erhe Gao; Ling Tao; Wayne Bond Lau; Yuexin Yuan; Barry J Goldstein; Bernard L Lopez; Theodore A Christopher; Rong Tian; Walter Koch; Xin-Liang Ma Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Dongchoon Ahn; Linda Cheng; Chanil Moon; Harold Spurgeon; Edward G Lakatta; Mark I Talan Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Henriette Brinks; Matthieu Boucher; Erhe Gao; J Kurt Chuprun; Stéphanie Pesant; Philip W Raake; Z Maggie Huang; Xiaoliang Wang; Gang Qiu; Anna Gumpert; David M Harris; Andrea D Eckhart; Patrick Most; Walter J Koch Journal: Circ Res Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Hongyu Zhang; Catherine A Makarewich; Hajime Kubo; Wei Wang; Jason M Duran; Ying Li; Remus M Berretta; Walter J Koch; Xiongwen Chen; Erhe Gao; Héctor H Valdivia; Steven R Houser Journal: Circ Res Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Gonzalo Hernández; Hind Lal; Miguel Fidalgo; Ana Guerrero; Juan Zalvide; Thomas Force; Celia M Pombo Journal: Exp Cell Res Date: 2011-10-02 Impact factor: 3.905
Authors: Priscila Y Sato; J Kurt Chuprun; Laurel A Grisanti; Meryl C Woodall; Brett R Brown; Rajika Roy; Christopher J Traynham; Jessica Ibetti; Anna M Lucchese; Ancai Yuan; Konstantinos Drosatos; Doug G Tilley; Erhe Gao; Walter J Koch Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 8.192
Authors: Risto Kerkelä; Matthieu Boucher; Raihana Zaka; Erhe Gao; David Harris; Jarkko Piuhola; Jianliang Song; Raisa Serpi; Kathleen C Woulfe; Joseph Y Cheung; Eileen O'Leary; Joseph V Bonventre; Thomas Force Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Jifen Li; Steven Goossens; Jolanda van Hengel; Erhe Gao; Lan Cheng; Koen Tyberghein; Xiying Shang; Riet De Rycke; Frans van Roy; Glenn L Radice Journal: J Cell Sci Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 5.285
Authors: Timothy S Luongo; Jonathan P Lambert; Polina Gross; Mary Nwokedi; Alyssa A Lombardi; Santhanam Shanmughapriya; April C Carpenter; Devin Kolmetzky; Erhe Gao; Jop H van Berlo; Emily J Tsai; Jeffery D Molkentin; Xiongwen Chen; Muniswamy Madesh; Steven R Houser; John W Elrod Journal: Nature Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 49.962