Why the study?
Does troglitazone inhibit L-type calcium currents more effectively in diabetic rat cardiac ventricular myocytes compared to controls?
Does troglitazone inhibit L-type calcium currents more effectively in diabetic rat cardiac ventricular myocytes compared to controls?
Troglitazone inhibits L-type calcium currents more effectively in diabetic rat ventricular myocytes, suggesting a potential mechanism for its cardioprotective effects in diabetic cardiomyopathy.
Hypothesis-generating for troglitazone effects in diabetic hearts; human studies required before clinical relevance.
Troglitazone, an insulin-sensitizing agent shown to improve cardiac function in both experimental animals and patients with diabetes, inhibits voltage-dependent L-type Ca(2+) currents (I(Ca,L)) in cardiac myocytes, which may underlie its cardioprotective effects. However, inhibition by troglitazone of I(Ca,L) in diabetic cardiac myocytes has not been characterized. 2. Using whole-cell voltage-clamp techniques, I(Ca,L) was measured in ventricular myocytes isolated from 4-6 weeks streptozotocin (STZ)-induced diabetic rats and age-matched control rats. 3. Under control conditions with CsCl internal solution, diabetic myocytes did not differ from control myocytes in membrane capacitance, current density or voltage-dependent properties of I(Ca,L). 4. Troglitazone decreased amplitude of I(Ca,L) in both control and diabetic myocytes in a concentration-dependent manner. This inhibition was more potent in diabetic than in control myocytes; half-maximum inhibitory concentrations of troglitazone measured at a holding potential of -50 mV were 4.3 and 9.5 micromol l(-1), respectively. 5. Troglitazone at 5 micromol l(-1) did not significantly influence the voltage dependency of steady-state inactivation or the inactivation time course of I(Ca,L) in either control or diabetic myocytes. 6. Since troglitazone inhibits I(Ca,L) more effectively in STZ-induced diabetic ventricular myocytes, this agent may prevent cardiac dysfunction in diabetes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arikawa et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: