Gene Expression in Atherogenesis

2001 ◽  
Vol 86 (07) ◽  
pp. 404-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Houshang Monajemi ◽  
E. Karin Arkenbout ◽  
Hans Pannekoek

SummaryIt is conceivable that the extent and spatio-temperal expression of dozens or even a few hundred genes are significantly altered during the development and progression of atherosclerosis as compared to normal circumstances. Differential gene expression in vascular cells and in blood cells, due to gene-gene and gene-environment interactions can be considered the molecular basis for this disease. To comprehend the coherence of the complex genetic response to systemic and local atherosclerotic challenges, one needs accessible high through-put technologies to analyze a panel of differentially expressed genes and to describe the interactions between and among their gene products. Fortunately, new technologies have been developed which allow a complete inventory of differential gene expression, i.e. DD/RT-PCR, SAGE and DNA micro-array. The initial data on the application of these technologies in cardiovascular research are now being reported. This review summarizes a number of key observations. Special attention is paid to a few central transcription factors which are differentially expressed in endothelial cells, smooth muscle cells or monocytes/ macrophages. Recent data on the role of nuclear factor- B (NF-κB) and peroxisome proliferation-activating receptors (PPARs) are discussed. Like the PPARs, the NGFI-B subfamily of orphan receptors (TR3, MINOR and NOT) also belongs to the steroid/thryroid hormone receptor superfamily of transcription factors. We report that this subfamily is specifically induced in a sub-population of neointimal smooth muscle cells. Furthermore, intriguing new data implicating the Sp/XKLF family of transcription factors in cell-cell communication and maintenance of the atherogenic phenotype are mentioned. A member of the Sp/XKLF family, the shear stress-regulated lung Krüppel-like factor (LKLF) is speculated to be instrumental for the communication between endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells. Taken together, the expectation is that the fundamental knowledge obtained on atherogenesis and the data that will be acquired during the coming decade with the new, powerful high through-put methodologies will lead to novel modalities to treat patients suffering from cardiovascular disease. In view of the phenotypic changes of vascular and blood-borne cells during atherogenesis, therapeutic interventions likely will focus on reversal of an acquired phenotype by gene therapy approach or by using specific drugs which interfere with aberrant gene expression.

1994 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 774-786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Keen ◽  
Kevin D. Nolan ◽  
Maria Cipollone ◽  
Elizabeth Scott ◽  
Vera P. Shively ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shinsuke Kikuchi ◽  
Lihua Chen ◽  
Kevin Xiong ◽  
Yukihiro Saito ◽  
Nobuyoshi Azuma ◽  
...  

Objective: Venous valves are prone to injury, thrombosis and fibrosis. We compared the behavior and gene expression of smooth muscle cells (SMCs) in the valve sinus vs non-valve sites to elucidate biological differences associated with vein valves. Methods: SMC migration was measured using 2.5 mm 2 explants of the intima/media of valve sinus segments (without valve leaflets) vs. non-valve segments of human saphenous veins. Proliferation and death of SMCs was determined by staining for Ki67 and TUNEL, respectively. Proliferation and migration of passaged valve vs non-valve SMCs was determined by cell counts and using microchemotaxis chambers. Global gene expression in valve vs non-valve intima/media was determined by RNA-Seq. Results: Valve SMCs demonstrated greater proliferation within tissue explants compared to non-valve SMCs (19.3±5.4% vs. 6.8±2.0% Ki67 positive nuclei at 4 days, respectively; mean ± SEM, 5 veins; P<.05). This was also true for migration (18.2±2.7 vs. 7.5±3.0 migrated SMCs/explant at 6 days, respectively; 24 veins, 15 explants/vein; P<.0001). Cell death was not different (39.6±16.1% vs. 41.5±16.0% TUNEL positive cells, respectively, at 4 days, 5 veins). Cultured valve SMCs also proliferated faster than non-valve SMCs in response to PDGF-BB (2.9±0.2 vs. 2.1±0.2 fold of control, respectively; P<.001; N=5 vein’s paired cells). This was also true for migration (6.5±1.2 vs. 4.4±0.8 fold of control, respectively; P<.001; N=7 vein’s paired cells). Blockade of FGF2 inhibited the increased responses of valve SMCs, but had no effect on non-valve SMCs. Exogenous FGF2 increased migration of valve, but not non-valve SMCs. Unexpectedly, blockade of FGF2 did not block migration of valve or non-valve SMCs from tissue explants. 37 genes were differentially expressed by valve compared to non-valve intimal/medial tissue (11 veins). Conclusions: Valve, compared to non-valve, SMCs have greater rates of migration and proliferation, which may in part explain the propensity for pathological lesion formation in valves. While FGF2 mediates these effects in cultured SMCs, the mediators of these stimulatory effects in valve wall tissue remain unidentified. Here, the newly identified differentially expressed genes may play a role.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document