Preclinical study demonstrates notoginsenoside R1 suppresses intraplaque neovascularization in mice, highlighting a therapeutic strategy for vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques.
Atherosclerosis represents the major cause of mortality worldwide and triggers higher risk of acute cardiovascular events. Pericytes‐endothelial cells (ECs) communication is orchestrated by ligand‐receptor interaction generating a microenvironment which results in intraplaque neovascularization, that is closely associated with atherosclerotic plaque instability. Notoginsenoside R 1 ( R 1 ) exhibits anti‐atherosclerotic bioactivity, but its effect on angiogenesis in atherosclerotic plaque remains elusive. The aim of our study is to explore the therapeutic effect of R 1 on vulnerable plaque and investigate its potential mechanism against intraplaque neovascularization. The impacts of R 1 on plaque stability and intraplaque neovascularization were assessed in ApoE −/− mice induced by high‐fat diet. Pericytes‐ECs direct or non‐direct contact co‐cultured with VEGF‐A stimulation were used as the in vitro angiogenesis models. Overexpressing Ang1 in pericytes was performed to investigate the underlying mechanism. In vivo experiments, R 1 treatment reversed atherosclerotic plaque vulnerability and decreased the presence of neovessels in ApoE −/− mice. Additionally, R 1 reduced the expression of Ang1 in pericytes. In vitro experiments demonstrated that R 1 suppressed pro‐angiogenic behavior of ECs induced by pericytes cultured with VEGF‐A. Mechanistic studies revealed that the anti‐angiogenic effect of R 1 was dependent on the inhibition of Ang1 and Tie2 expression, as the effects were partially reversed after Ang1 overexpressing in pericytes. Our study demonstrated that R 1 treatment inhibited intraplaque neovascularization by governing pericyte‐EC association via suppressing Ang1‐Tie2/PI3K‐AKT paracrine signaling pathway. R 1 represents a novel therapeutic strategy for atherosclerotic vulnerable plaques in clinical application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: