| Literature DB >> 31151453 |
Steen Buus Kristiansen1, Kim Bolther Pælestik2, Jacob Johnsen2, Nichlas Riise Jespersen2, Kasper Pryds2, Marie Vognstoft Hjortbak2, Rebekka Vibjerg Jensen2, Hans Erik Bøtker2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underlying increased mortality in patients with diabetes and admission hyperglycemia after an acute coronary syndrome may involve reduced capacity for cardioprotection. We investigated the impact of hyperglycemia on exogenously activated cardioprotection by ischemic preconditioning (IPC) in hearts from rats with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) that were endogenously cardioprotected by an inherent mechanism, and the involvement of myocardial glucose uptake (MGU) and myocardial O-linked β-N-acetylglucosamine (O-GlcNAc). METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Hyperglycemia; Infarction; Ischemia; O-GlcNAc; Reperfusion; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31151453 PMCID: PMC6543682 DOI: 10.1186/s12933-019-0872-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol ISSN: 1475-2840 Impact factor: 9.951
Fig. 1Infarct size (%) at the end of 40 min of global ischemia and 120 min of reperfusion in diabetic (DM) Control, Non-DM Control, DM ischemic preconditioned (IPC) and Non-DM-IPC hearts. Perfusion glucose level were 11 mmol/L and 22 mmol/L. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01. Mean ± SEM
Fig. 2a Left ventricular developed pressure (LVDP), b rate pressure product and c coronary flow in diabetic (DM) Control ( ), DM ischemic preconditioned (IPC) ( ), DM intensified ischemic preconditioning (iIPC) ( ), Non-DM Control ( ), Non-DM IPC ( ) and Non-DM iIPC ( ) hearts during stabilization and reperfusion. Perfusion glucose level were 11 mmol/l and 22 mmol/L. #p < 0.05 compared to non-DM Control. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 compared to control. Mean ± SEM
Fig. 3Tracer-estimated exogenous glucose uptake in diabetic (DM) Control ( ), DM ischemic preconditioned (IPC) ( ), DM intensified ischemic preconditioning (iIPC) ( ), Non-DM Control ( ), Non-DM IPC ( ) and Non-DM iIPC ( ) hearts during stabilization and reperfusion. Perfusion glucose level was 11 mmol/L and 22 mmol/L. #p < 0.05; ##p < 0.01 compared to Non-DM Control. *p < 0.05 compared to control. Mean ± SEM
Fig. 4a O-GlcNAc (CTD110.6 antibody) levels in diabetic (DM) Control, Non-DM Control, DM ischemic preconditioned (IPC), Non-DM IPC, DM intensified ischemic preconditioned (iIPC) and Non-DM iIPC hearts expressed as fold change compared to 11 mmol/L Non-DM Control and correlated against total protein. b Representative O-GlcNAc bands. Note the higher intensity in the preconditioned compared with corresponding control hearts. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. Mean ± SEM