Why the study?
Do subphysiologic plasma ApoE levels inhibit neointimal formation after arterial injury in ApoE-deficient mice?
Do subphysiologic plasma ApoE levels inhibit neointimal formation after arterial injury in ApoE-deficient mice?
In a mouse model of arterial injury, subphysiological levels of ApoE reduced neointimal formation and foam cell content independent of plasma cholesterol levels.
May limit neointimal hyperplasia via apoE in mice independent of cholesterol; hypothesis-generating for human vascular therapies.
OBJECTIVE: Apolipoprotein E (apoE) reduces mouse atherosclerosis progression independent of plasma cholesterol level effects. A mouse artery injury model was used to examine whether apoE exhibits beneficial lipid-independent effects on neointimal formation. METHODS AND RESULTS: ApoE-deficient (apoE-/-), wild-type (WT), and transgenic apoE-/- mice (secreting apoE at different levels from adrenal glands) underwent femoral artery injury. Mice with low expression of plasma apoE (0.1% of WT) had cholesterol levels approximately half those of apoE-/- littermates (but still approximately 6x >WT). Mice with higher expression (HE; 2% to 3% of WT) of plasma apoE had cholesterol levels approximately twice those of WT. Injured WT mouse (versus apoE-/-) arteries had a smaller mean intima-to-media (I/M) ratio (0.87 versus 1.96; P<0.05). HE mice tended to have lower mean I/M ratios (1.3; P>0.05 versus apoE-/- mice). Multiple regression analysis indicated that apoE levels were significantly associated with reduced I/M ratios, but plasma cholesterol levels were not, before or after adjusting for apoE. In addition, foam cell content of the neointima and media of injured arteries, a negative prognostic indicator in postangioplasty human lesions, was inversely related to plasma apoE levels. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to its effects on atherosclerosis progression, in a mouse model of restenosis, a subphysiological level of apoE was associated with beneficial effects on lesion size/composition.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wientgen et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: