Why the study?
Does ablation of the Angiotensin IV receptor (IRAP) improve fibrinolysis and reduce arterial thrombosis in mice?
Does ablation of the Angiotensin IV receptor (IRAP) improve fibrinolysis and reduce arterial thrombosis in mice?
Ablation of the Angiotensin IV receptor (IRAP) attenuates hypofibrinolysis via PAI-1 downregulation and reduces occlusive arterial thrombosis in mice, suggesting AT4R as a potential therapeutic target.
IRAP ablation attenuates thrombosis in mice; leaves open whether AT4R inhibition is a viable human antithrombotic strategy.
OBJECTIVE: Reduced fibrinolytic activity is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Although insulin-regulated aminopeptidase (IRAP) was recently identified as the angiotensin (Ang) IV receptor (AT4R), the impact of AngIV-AT4R signaling distal to AngII on the activation of type-1 plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI-1) in the fibrinolytic process and subsequent formation of thrombosis remains unclarified. METHODS AND RESULTS: To determine whether AngIV would inhibit fibrinolysis via PAI-1 activation and promote thrombosis, we evaluated the degree of fibrinolysis in thrombosis models and investigated the roles of AT4R after vascular injury using IRAP knockout mice (IRAP(-/-)). In endothelial cells from control mice (WT; C57Bl6/J), both AngII and AngIV treatments increased PAI-1 mRNA expression in a dose-dependent manner, whereas the response was blunted in endothelial cells from IRAP(-/-) mice. FeCl(3)-induced thrombosis was suppressed in the carotid arteries of IRAP(-/-) mice when compared with WT mice. Similarly, in a model of carotid artery ligation and cuff placement, IRAP(-/-) mice demonstrated accelerated fibrinolysis 7 days after surgery and reduced occlusive thrombosis with negative remodeling at 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: AngIV-AT4R signaling has a key role in fibrinolysis and the subsequent formation of arterial thrombosis after vascular injury. AT4R may be a novel therapeutic target against cardiovascular disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Numaguchi et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: