Oana Herlea-Pana1, Longbiao Yao1, Janet Heuser-Baker1, Qiongxin Wang2, Qilong Wang2, Constantin Georgescu3, Ming-Hui Zou2, Jana Barlic-Dicen4. 1. Cardiovascular Biology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, 825 NE 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA. 2. Division of Molecular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 3. Arthritis and Clinical Immunology Programs, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK, USA. 4. Cardiovascular Biology, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, 825 NE 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73104, USA jana-barlic-dicen@omrf.org.
Abstract
AIMS: Atherosclerosis manifests itself as arterial plaques, which lead to heart attacks or stroke. Treatments supporting plaque regression are therefore aggressively pursued. Studies conducted in models in which hypercholesterolaemia is reversible, such as the Reversa mouse model we have employed in the current studies, will be instrumental for the development of such interventions. Using this model, we have shown that advanced atherosclerosis regression occurs when lipid lowering is used in combination with bone-marrow endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) treatment. However, it remains unclear how EPCs home to regressing plaques and how they augment atherosclerosis reversal. Here we identify molecules that support functional responses of EPCs during plaque resolution. METHODS AND RESULTS: Chemokines CXCL1 and CX3CL1 were detected in the vascular wall of atheroregressing Reversa mice, and their cognate receptors CXCR2 and CX3CR1 were observed on adoptively transferred EPCs in circulation. We tested whether CXCL1-CXCR2 and CX3CL1-CX3CR1 axes regulate functional responses of EPCs during plaque reversal. We show that pharmacological inhibition of CXCR2 or CX3CR1, or genetic inactivation of these two chemokine receptors interfered with EPC-mediated advanced atherosclerosis regression. We also demonstrate that CXCR2 directs EPCs to regressing plaques while CX3CR1 controls a paracrine function(s) of these cells. CONCLUSION: CXCR2 and CX3CR1 differentially regulate EPC functional responses during atheroregression. Our study improves understanding of how chemokines and chemokine receptors regulate plaque resolution, which could determine the effectiveness of interventions reducing complications of atherosclerosis. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Atherosclerosis manifests itself as arterial plaques, which lead to heart attacks or stroke. Treatments supporting plaque regression are therefore aggressively pursued. Studies conducted in models in which hypercholesterolaemia is reversible, such as the Reversa mouse model we have employed in the current studies, will be instrumental for the development of such interventions. Using this model, we have shown that advanced atherosclerosis regression occurs when lipid lowering is used in combination with bone-marrow endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) treatment. However, it remains unclear how EPCs home to regressing plaques and how they augment atherosclerosis reversal. Here we identify molecules that support functional responses of EPCs during plaque resolution. METHODS AND RESULTS: Chemokines CXCL1 and CX3CL1 were detected in the vascular wall of atheroregressing Reversa mice, and their cognate receptors CXCR2 and CX3CR1 were observed on adoptively transferred EPCs in circulation. We tested whether CXCL1-CXCR2 and CX3CL1-CX3CR1 axes regulate functional responses of EPCs during plaque reversal. We show that pharmacological inhibition of CXCR2 or CX3CR1, or genetic inactivation of these two chemokine receptors interfered with EPC-mediated advanced atherosclerosis regression. We also demonstrate that CXCR2 directs EPCs to regressing plaques while CX3CR1 controls a paracrine function(s) of these cells. CONCLUSION:CXCR2 and CX3CR1 differentially regulate EPC functional responses during atheroregression. Our study improves understanding of how chemokines and chemokine receptors regulate plaque resolution, which could determine the effectiveness of interventions reducing complications of atherosclerosis. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: D H McDermott; J P Halcox; W H Schenke; M A Waclawiw; M N Merrell; N Epstein; A A Quyyumi; P M Murphy Journal: Circ Res Date: 2001-08-31 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Mihail Hristov; Alma Zernecke; Kiril Bidzhekov; Elisa A Liehn; Erdenechimeg Shagdarsuren; Andreas Ludwig; Christian Weber Journal: Circ Res Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: David H McDermott; Alan M Fong; Qiong Yang; Joan M Sechler; L Adrienne Cupples; Maya N Merrell; Peter W F Wilson; Ralph B D'Agostino; Christopher J O'Donnell; Dhavalkumar D Patel; Philip M Murphy Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Esther Lutgens; Marion Gijbels; Marjan Smook; Peter Heeringa; Philip Gotwals; Victor E Koteliansky; Mat J A P Daemen Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2002-06-01 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Sylvia Otto; Kristina Nitsche; Christian Jung; Aleh Kryvanos; Andrey Zhylka; Kerstin Heitkamp; Juan-Luis Gutiérrez-Chico; Björn Goebel; P Christian Schulze; Hans R Figulla; Tudor C Poerner Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Savneet Kaur; Rashi Sehgal; Saggere M Shastry; Geoffrey McCaughan; Helen M McGuire; Barbara Fazekas St de Groth; Shiv Sarin; Nirupma Trehanpati; Devanshi Seth Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2018-05-22 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Adil Rasheed; Sarah A Shawky; Ricky Tsai; Richard G Jung; Trevor Simard; Michael F Saikali; Benjamin Hibbert; Katey J Rayner; Carolyn L Cummins Journal: Stem Cells Transl Med Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 6.940