Why the study?
Does folic acid improve cardiac dysfunction and remodeling post-myocardial infarction in a mouse model?
Does folic acid improve cardiac dysfunction and remodeling post-myocardial infarction in a mouse model?
Folic acid supplementation mitigates post-myocardial infarction cardiac dysfunction and remodeling in mice by normalizing homocysteine metabolism and metalloproteinase inhibitors.
Folic acid improves post-MI ejection fraction in mice; leaves open translation to human remodeling and requires clinical trials.
Myocardial infarction (MI) results in significant metabolic derangement, causing accumulation of metabolic by product, such as homocysteine (Hcy). Hcy is a nonprotein amino acid generated during nucleic acid methylation and demethylation of methionine. Folic acid (FA) decreases Hcy levels by remethylating the Hcy to methionine, by 5-methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (5-MTHFR). Although clinical trials were inconclusive regarding the role of Hcy in MI, in animal models, the levels of 5-MTHFR were decreased, and FA mitigated the MI injury. We hypothesized that FA mitigated MI-induced injury, in part, by mitigating cardiac remodeling during chronic heart failure. Thus, MI was induced in 12-wk-old male C57BL/J mice by ligating the left anterior descending artery, and FA (0.03 g/l in drinking water) was administered for 4 wk after the surgery. Cardiac function was assessed by echocardiography and by a Millar pressure-volume catheter. The levels of Hcy-metabolizing enzymes, cystathionine β-synthase (CBS), cystathionine γ-lyase (CSE), and 5-MTHFR, were estimated by Western blot analyses. The results suggest that FA administered post-MI significantly improved cardiac ejection fraction and induced tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase, CBS, CSE, and 5-MTHFR. We showed that FA supplementation resulted in significant improvement of myocardial function after MI. The study eluted the importance of homocysteine (Hcy) metabolism and FA supplementation in cardiovascular disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Qipshidze et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: