RATIONALE: The signal transduction of remote ischemic conditioning is still largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterization of neurohumoral signal transfer and vago-splenic axis in remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Anesthetized pigs were subjected to 60 minutes of coronary occlusion and 180 minutes of reperfusion (placebo+ischemia/reperfusion [PLA+I/R]). RIPC was induced by 4×5/5 minutes of hindlimb I/R 90 minutes before coronary occlusion (RIPC+I/R). Arterial blood samples were taken after placebo or RIPC before I/R. In subgroups of pigs, bilateral cervical vagotomy, splenectomy, or splenic denervation were performed before PLA+I/R or RIPC+I/R, respectively. In pigs with RIPC+I/R, infarct size (percentage of area at risk) was less than in those with PLA+I/R (23±12% versus 45±8%); splenectomy or splenic denervation abrogated (splenectomy+RIPC+I/R: 38±15%; splenic denervation+RIPC+I/R: 43±5%), and vagotomy attenuated (vagotomy+RIPC+I/R: 36±11%) RIPC protection. RIPC increased phosphorylation of STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3) in left ventricular biopsies taken at early reperfusion. Splenectomy or splenic denervation, but not vagotomy, abolished this increased phosphorylation. In rats with vagotomy, splenectomy, or splenic denervation, RIPC (3×5/5 minutes of hindlimb occlusion/reperfusion) or placebo was performed, respectively. Hearts were isolated, saline perfused, and subjected to 30/120-minute global I/R. With RIPC, infarct size (percentage of ventricular mass) was less (20±7%) than with placebo (37±6%), and vagotomy, splenectomy, or splenic denervation abrogated RIPC protection (38±12%, 36±9%, and 36±7%), respectively. Rat spleens were isolated, saline perfused, and splenic effluate (SEff) was sampled after infusion with carbachol (SEffcarbachol) or saline (SEffsaline). Pig plasma or SEff was infused into isolated perfused rat hearts subjected to global I/R. Infarct size was less with infusion of RIPC+I/Rplasma+ (24±6%) than with PLA+I/Rplasma (40±8%), vagotomy+PLA+I/Rplasma (39±11%), splenectomy+PLA+I/Rplasma (35±8%), vagotomy+RIPC+I/Rplasma (40±9%), splenectomy+RIPC+I/Rplasma (33±9%), or splenic denervation+RIPC+I/Rplasma (39±8%), respectively. With infusion of SEffcarbachol, infarct size was less than with infusion of SEffsaline (24 [19-27]% versus 35 [32-38]%). CONCLUSIONS: Activation of a vago-splenic axis is causally involved in RIPC cardioprotection.
RATIONALE: The signal transduction of remote ischemic conditioning is still largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: Characterization of neurohumoral signal transfer and vago-splenic axis in remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC). METHODS AND RESULTS: Anesthetized pigs were subjected to 60 minutes of coronary occlusion and 180 minutes of reperfusion (placebo+ischemia/reperfusion [PLA+I/R]). RIPC was induced by 4×5/5 minutes of hindlimb I/R 90 minutes before coronary occlusion (RIPC+I/R). Arterial blood samples were taken after placebo or RIPC before I/R. In subgroups of pigs, bilateral cervical vagotomy, splenectomy, or splenic denervation were performed before PLA+I/R or RIPC+I/R, respectively. In pigs with RIPC+I/R, infarct size (percentage of area at risk) was less than in those with PLA+I/R (23±12% versus 45±8%); splenectomy or splenic denervation abrogated (splenectomy+RIPC+I/R: 38±15%; splenic denervation+RIPC+I/R: 43±5%), and vagotomy attenuated (vagotomy+RIPC+I/R: 36±11%) RIPC protection. RIPC increased phosphorylation of STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3) in left ventricular biopsies taken at early reperfusion. Splenectomy or splenic denervation, but not vagotomy, abolished this increased phosphorylation. In rats with vagotomy, splenectomy, or splenic denervation, RIPC (3×5/5 minutes of hindlimb occlusion/reperfusion) or placebo was performed, respectively. Hearts were isolated, saline perfused, and subjected to 30/120-minute global I/R. With RIPC, infarct size (percentage of ventricular mass) was less (20±7%) than with placebo (37±6%), and vagotomy, splenectomy, or splenic denervation abrogated RIPC protection (38±12%, 36±9%, and 36±7%), respectively. Rat spleens were isolated, saline perfused, and splenic effluate (SEff) was sampled after infusion with carbachol (SEffcarbachol) or saline (SEffsaline). Pig plasma or SEff was infused into isolated perfused rat hearts subjected to global I/R. Infarct size was less with infusion of RIPC+I/Rplasma+ (24±6%) than with PLA+I/Rplasma (40±8%), vagotomy+PLA+I/Rplasma (39±11%), splenectomy+PLA+I/Rplasma (35±8%), vagotomy+RIPC+I/Rplasma (40±9%), splenectomy+RIPC+I/Rplasma (33±9%), or splenic denervation+RIPC+I/Rplasma (39±8%), respectively. With infusion of SEffcarbachol, infarct size was less than with infusion of SEffsaline (24 [19-27]% versus 35 [32-38]%). CONCLUSIONS: Activation of a vago-splenic axis is causally involved in RIPC cardioprotection.
Authors: Hans Erik Bøtker; Derek Hausenloy; Ioanna Andreadou; Salvatore Antonucci; Kerstin Boengler; Sean M Davidson; Soni Deshwal; Yvan Devaux; Fabio Di Lisa; Moises Di Sante; Panagiotis Efentakis; Saveria Femminò; David García-Dorado; Zoltán Giricz; Borja Ibanez; Efstathios Iliodromitis; Nina Kaludercic; Petra Kleinbongard; Markus Neuhäuser; Michel Ovize; Pasquale Pagliaro; Michael Rahbek-Schmidt; Marisol Ruiz-Meana; Klaus-Dieter Schlüter; Rainer Schulz; Andreas Skyschally; Catherine Wilder; Derek M Yellon; Peter Ferdinandy; Gerd Heusch Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: Mauricio Rosas-Ballina; Peder S Olofsson; Mahendar Ochani; Sergio I Valdés-Ferrer; Yaakov A Levine; Colin Reardon; Michael W Tusche; Valentin A Pavlov; Ulf Andersson; Sangeeta Chavan; Tak W Mak; Kevin J Tracey Journal: Science Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Petra Kleinbongard; Andreas Skyschally; Sabine Gent; Marion Pesch; Gerd Heusch Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: R M Bell; M Basalay; H E Bøtker; S Beikoghli Kalkhoran; R D Carr; J Cunningham; S M Davidson; T J England; S Giesz; A K Ghosh; P Golforoush; A V Gourine; D J Hausenloy; G Heusch; B Ibanez; P Kleinbongard; S Lecour; K Lukhna; M Ntsekhe; M Ovize; A D Salama; G Vilahur; J M Walker; D M Yellon Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2022-08-15 Impact factor: 12.416
Authors: Takerra K Johnson; Lina Zhao; Dihan Zhu; Yang Wang; Yan Xiao; Babayewa Oguljahan; Xueying Zhao; Ward G Kirlin; Liya Yin; William M Chilian; Dong Liu Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Merry L Lindsey; Zamaneh Kassiri; Kara Hansell Keehan; Keith R Brunt; Jason R Carter; Jonathan A Kirk; Petra Kleinbongard; Amanda J LeBlanc; Crystal M Ripplinger Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Gal Yaniv; Arik Eisenkraft; Lilach Gavish; Linn Wagnert-Avraham; Dean Nachman; Jacob Megreli; Gil Shimon; Daniel Rimbrot; Ben Simon; Asaf Berman; Matan Cohen; David Kushnir; Ruth Shaylor; Baruch Batzofin; Shimon Firman; Amir Shlaifer; Michael Hartal; Yuval Heled; Elon Glassberg; Yitshak Kreiss; S David Gertz Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Derek J Hausenloy; Hans Erik Bøtker; Peter Ferdinandy; Gerd Heusch; G André Ng; Andrew Redington; David Garcia-Dorado Journal: Cardiovasc Res Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 10.787