Hepatic LRP deficiency increases atherosclerosis in mice independent of plasma cholesterol levels, suggesting a protective role through the clearance of proatherogenic ligands.
Supports LRP-mediated atheroprotection independent of cholesterol; hypothesis-generating in mice, human relevance remains open.
The low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor-related protein (LRP) has a well-established role in the hepatic removal of atherogenic apolipoprotein E (APOE)-rich remnant lipoproteins from plasma. In addition, LRP recognizes multiple distinct pro- and antiatherogenic ligands in vitro. Here, we investigated the role of hepatic LRP in atherogenesis independent of its role in removal of APOE-rich remnant lipoproteins. Mice that allow inducible inactivation of hepatic LRP were combined with LDL receptor and APOE double-deficient mice (MX1Cre(+)LRP(flox/flox)LDLR(-/-)APOE(-/-)). On an LDLR(-/-)APOE(-/-) background, hepatic LRP deficiency resulted in decreased plasma cholesterol and triglycerides (cholesterol: 17.1 +/- 5.2 vs 23.4 +/- 6.3 mM, P =.025; triglycerides: 1.1 +/- 0.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.8 mM, P =.002, for MX1Cre(+)LRP(flox/flox)-LDLR(-/-)APOE(-/-) and control LRP(flox/flox)-LDLR(-/-)APOE(-/-) mice, respectively). Lower plasma cholesterol in MX1Cre(+)LRP(flox/flox)-LDLR(-/-)APOE(-/-) mice coincided with increased plasma lipoprotein lipase (71.2 +/- 7.5 vs 19.1 +/- 2.4 ng/ml, P =.002), coagulation factor VIII (4.4 +/- 1.1 vs 1.9 +/- 0.5 U/mL, P =.001), von Willebrand factor (2.8 +/- 0.6 vs 1.4 +/- 0.3 U/mL, P =.001), and tissue-type plasminogen activator (1.7 +/- 0.7 vs 0.9 +/- 0.5 ng/ml, P =.008) compared with controls. Strikingly, MX1Cre(+)LRP(flox/flox)LDLR(-/-)APOE(-/-) mice showed a 2-fold higher atherosclerotic lesion area compared with controls (408.5 +/- 115.1 vs 219.1 +/- 86.0 10(3)microm(2), P =.003). Our data indicate that hepatic LRP plays a clear protective role in atherogenesis independent of plasma cholesterol, possibly due to maintaining low levels of its proatherogenic ligands.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santo et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: