Why the study?
Intracellular calcium dysregulation is involved in doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy, but the cardioprotective role of the RyR stabilizer dantrolene on calcium dynamics had not yet been explored.
Does dantrolene prevent doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy and calcium dysregulation in adult male C57BL/6 mice?
Does dantrolene prevent doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy and calcium dysregulation in adult male C57BL/6 mice?
Dantrolene prevents doxorubicin-induced cardiac contractile dysfunction in mice by mitigating intracellular calcium dysregulation.
Dantrolene may mitigate doxorubicin cardiotoxicity in mice; hypothesis-generating and leaves open clinical translation.
BackgroundDoxorubicin (Dox) is a potent chemotherapeutic agent, but its usage is limited by dose-dependent cardiotoxicity. Intracellular calcium dysregulation has been reported to be involved in doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy (DICM). The cardioprotective role of RyR stabilizer dantrolene (Dan) on the calcium dynamics of DICM has not yet been explored.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of dantrolene on intracellular calcium dysregulation and cardiac contractile function in a DICM model.MethodsAdult male C57BL/6 mice were randomized into 4 groups: (1) Control, (2) Dox Only, (3) Dan Only, and (4) Dan + Dox. Fractional shortening (FS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were assessed by echocardiography. In addition, mice were sacrificed 2 weeks after doxorubicin injection for optical mapping of the heart in a Langendorff setup.ResultsTreatment with Dox was associated with a reduction in both FS and LVEF at 2 weeks (P < .0001) and 4 weeks (P < .006). Dox treatment was also associated with prolongation of calcium transient durations CaTD50 (P = .0005) and CaTD80 (P < .0001) and reduction of calcium amplitude alternans ratio (P < .0001). Concomitant treatment with Dan prevented the Dox-induced decline in FS and LVEF (P < .002 at both 2 and 4 weeks). Dan also prevented Dox-induced prolongation of CaTD50 and CaTD80 and improved the CaT alternans ratio (P < .0001). Finally, calcium transient rise time was increased in the doxorubicin-treated group, indicating RyR2 dyssynchrony, and dantrolene prevented this prolongation (P = .02).ConclusionDantrolene prevents cardiac contractile dysfunction following doxorubicin treatment by mitigating dysregulation of calcium dynamics. Doxorubicin (Dox) is a potent chemotherapeutic agent, but its usage is limited by dose-dependent cardiotoxicity. Intracellular calcium dysregulation has been reported to be involved in doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy (DICM). The cardioprotective role of RyR stabilizer dantrolene (Dan) on the calcium dynamics of DICM has not yet been explored. To evaluate the effects of dantrolene on intracellular calcium dysregulation and cardiac contractile function in a DICM model. Adult male C57BL/6 mice were randomized into 4 groups: (1) Control, (2) Dox Only, (3) Dan Only, and (4) Dan + Dox. Fractional shortening (FS) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were assessed by echocardiography. In addition, mice were sacrificed 2 weeks after doxorubicin injection for optical mapping of the heart in a Langendorff setup. Treatment with Dox was associated with a reduction in both FS and LVEF at 2 weeks (P < .0001) and 4 weeks (P < .006). Dox treatment was also associated with prolongation of calcium transient durations CaTD50 (P = .0005) and CaTD80 (P < .0001) and reduction of calcium amplitude alternans ratio (P < .0001). Concomitant treatment with Dan prevented the Dox-induced decline in FS and LVEF (P < .002 at both 2 and 4 weeks). Dan also prevented Dox-induced prolongation of CaTD50 and CaTD80 and improved the CaT alternans ratio (P < .0001). Finally, calcium transient rise time was increased in the doxorubicin-treated group, indicating RyR2 dyssynchrony, and dantrolene prevented this prolongation (P = .02). Dantrolene prevents cardiac contractile dysfunction following doxorubicin treatment by mitigating dysregulation of calcium dynamics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Azam et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: