| Literature DB >> 25425099 |
Qi Dong1,2, Zhiye Wu3,4, Xiaoyun Li5, Jianyun Yan6, Luning Zhao7, Chuntao Yang8, Junjiang Lu9, Ju Deng10,11, Minsheng Chen12,13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac hypertrophy is a compensatory stage of the heart in response to stress such as pressure overload (PO), which can develop into heart failure (HF) if left untreated. Resveratrol has been reported to prevent the development of hypertrophy and contractile dysfunction induced by PO. However, other studies found that resveratrol treatment for a longer period of time failed to regress cardiac hypertrophy. The aim of this study is to determine the timing of resveratrol treatment to achieve antihypertrophic effect and investigate whether resveratrol prevents the development of HF through preservation of myocardium structure and modulation of Ca(2+) handling proteins.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25425099 PMCID: PMC4278670 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-014-0323-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Figure 1Effects of resveratrol on the size of cardiomyocytes (n = 3) and the LV mass-to-body weight ratio (LVm/BW) (n = 6). (A) Photomicrographs of left ventricular tissue sections stained by hematoxylin and eosin. (B) Myocyte diameter. (C) Myocyte area. (D) LVm/BW. Data are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 vs. sham rats; † P < 0.05 †† P < 0.01 vs. banded rats.
Figure 2Effect of resveratrol on left ventricular (LV) chamber (n = 4 ~ 7). (A) Photomicrographs of the cross sectional area of LV chamber stained by hematoxylin and eosin. (B) Chamber diameter of LV. (C) LV internal dimensions at systole (LVIDs). (D) LV internal dimensions at diastole (LVIDd). Both LVIDs and LVIDd were detected by echocardiographic analysis. Data are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 vs. sham rats; † P < 0.05 †† P < 0.01 vs. banded rats.
Figure 3Effect of resveratrol on left ventricular (LV) systolic function (n = 4 ~ 7). (A) Representative pictures of echocardiography. (B) Fractional shortening (FS). (C) Ejection fraction (EF). (D) Maximal velocity through left ventricular outflow tract (Vmax). Data are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 vs. sham rats; † P < 0.05 †† P < 0.01 vs. banded rats.
Figure 4Effect of resveratrol on cardiac fibrosis in left ventricular (LV) myocardium (n = 4). (A) Representative photomicrographs of Masson trichrome staining for interstitial fibrosis showing myocardium in red and fibrosis in blue. (B) Quantification of interstitial fibrosis. (C) Representative photomicrographs of Masson trichrome staining for perivascular fibrosis. (D) Quantification of perivascular fibrosis. Data are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01 vs. sham rats; † P < 0.05, †† P < 0.01 vs. banded rats.
Figure 5Effects of resveratrol on myocardium ultrastructure detected by transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Representative TEM image illustrating (A) ultrastructure of myocardium with 15000 × Magnification, (B) mitochondria (white arrow) and (C) myofilaments (black arrow) with 30000 × Magnification in sham, banded and resveratrol-treated rats.
Figure 6Effects of resveratrol on the expressions of proteins responsible for SR Ca load and sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca -ATPase activity (n = 3). (A) Representative western blot from each group. (B) The levels of Phospholamban (PLB). (C) The levels of Phospho-PLB (S16) (p-PLB). (D) The ratio of p-PLB to PLB. (E) The levels of Na+/Ca2+-exchangers (NCX 1). (F) The levels of Sarcoplasmic reticulum Ca2+-ATPase (SERCA 2). (G) The ratio of SERCA 2 to PLB. (H) SERCA activity. Levels of proteins were quantified by densitometry and normalized against GADPH. Data are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 vs. sham rats; † P < 0.05 †† P < 0.01 vs. banded rats.
Figure 7Effects of resveratrol on protein expressions of Ca /calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II (CaMK II), phospho-CaMKII (Thr286) (p-CaMK II) and ryanodine receptor (RyR ) (n = 3). (A) Representative western blot from each group. (B) The levels of CaMK II. (C) The levels of p-CaMK II. (D) The ratio of p-CaMK II to CaMK II. (E) The levels of RyR2. Levels of proteins were quantified by densitometry and normalized against GADPH. Data are mean ± SEM. * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01 vs. sham rats; † P < 0.05 †† P < 0.01 vs. banded rats.