Why the study?
Does the ERβ selective agonist β-LGND2 prevent angiotensin-induced cardiovascular pathology in female mice?
Does the ERβ selective agonist β-LGND2 prevent angiotensin-induced cardiovascular pathology in female mice?
The ERβ selective agonist β-LGND2 prevents AngII-induced hypertension and cardiac hypertrophy in female mice, suggesting a potential therapeutic pathway for cardiovascular disease without the proliferative risks of estrogen.
Supports ERβ as a target in AngII-mediated pathology; hypothesis-generating and leaves open human translation.
Cardiac hypertrophy in humans can progress to cardiac failure if the underlying impetus is poorly controlled. An important direct stimulator of hypertrophy and its progression is the angiotensin II (AngII) peptide. AngII also causes hypertension that indirectly contributes to cardiac hypertrophy. Others and we have shown that estrogens acting through the estrogen receptor (ER)-β can inhibit AngII-induced or other forms of cardiac hypertrophy in mice. However, the proliferative effects of estrogen in breast and uterus that promote the development of malignancy preclude using the steroid to prevent cardiac disease progression. We therefore tested whether an ERβ selective agonist, β-LGND2, can prevent hypertension and cardiac pathology in female mice. AngII infusion over 3 weeks significantly stimulated systolic and diastolic hypertension, cardiac hypertrophy, and cardiac fibrosis, all significantly prevented by β-LGND2 in wild-type but not in ERβ genetically deleted mice. AngII stimulated the Akt kinase to phosphorylate and inhibit the glycogen synthase kinase-3β kinase, leading to GATA4 transcription factor activation and hypertrophic mRNA expression. As a novel mechanism, all these actions were opposed by estradiol and β-LGND2. Our findings provide additional understanding of the antihypertrophic effects of ERβ and serve as an impetus to test specific receptor agonists in humans to prevent the worsening of cardiovascular disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pedram et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: