Why the study?
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7) regulates physiological cardiac hypertrophy, but the molecular pathways involved in its responses in cardiomyocytes and catecholamine-induced cardiac damage needed investigation.
Does palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7) prevent catecholamine-induced cardiac damage in a mouse model?
Does palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7) prevent catecholamine-induced cardiac damage in a mouse model?
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7) demonstrates cardioprotective and anti-fibrotic effects in a mouse model of catecholamine-induced cardiac damage via PPAR activation.
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7) has been identified as a regulator of physiological cardiac hypertrophy. In the present study, we aimed to investigate the molecular pathways involved in C16:1n7 responses in primary murine cardiomyocytes (PCM) and a mouse model of isoproterenol (ISO)-induced cardiac damage. PCMs were stimulated with C16:1n7 or a vehicle. Afterwards, RNA sequencing was performed using an Illumina HiSeq sequencer. Confirmatory analysis was performed in PCMs and HL-1 cardiomyocytes. For an in vivo study, 129 sv mice were orally treated with a vehicle or C16:1n7 for 22 days. After 5 days of pre-treatment, the mice were injected with ISO (25 mg/kg/d s. c.) for 4 consecutive days. Cardiac phenotyping was performed using echocardiography. In total, 129 genes were differentially expressed in PCMs stimulated with C16:1n7, including Angiopoietin-like factor 4 (Angptl4) and Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Kinase 4 (Pdk4). Both Angptl4 and Pdk4 are proxisome proliferator-activated receptor α/δ (PPARα/δ) target genes. Our in vivo results indicated cardioprotective and anti-fibrotic effects of C16:1n7 application in mice. This was associated with the C16:1n7-dependent regulation of the cardiac PPAR-specific signaling pathways. In conclusion, our experiments demonstrated that C16:1n7 might have protective effects on cardiac fibrosis and inflammation. Our study may help to develop future lipid-based therapies for catecholamine-induced cardiac damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Betz et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: