Key result
Tobacco smoke exposure induced cardiac remodelling in rats but did not significantly alter MMP-2 (43% vs 50%, p=0.228) or MMP-9 (0.62% vs 0.36%, p=0.630) activity compared to controls.
Why the study?
Does tobacco smoke exposure induce cardiac remodeling via MMP-2 or MMP-9 activation in rats?
Does tobacco smoke exposure induce cardiac remodeling via MMP-2 or MMP-9 activation in rats?
Absolute Event Rate: 43% vs 50%
p-value: p=0.228
Tobacco smoke induces left ventricular remodeling in rats independent of MMP-2 and MMP-9 activation.
Tobacco smoke induces rat cardiac remodeling independent of MMP-2/9; leaves open alternative mechanisms for human cardiomyopathy research.
AIM: To investigate the role of MMP-2 and MMP-9 in cardiac remodelling induced by tobacco smoke exposure in rats. METHODS: Rats were allocated into two groups: C (n=9): control animals; ETS (n=9): exposed to tobacco smoke. After 4months, the animals underwent echocardiography, morphometric study and determination of MMP-2 and MMP-9 activity. RESULTS: ETS rats had larger diastolic (C=15.6 +/-1.2 mm/kg, ETS=18.0+/-0.9 mm/kg; p < 0.001) and systolic (C=7.3+/-1.2 mm/kg, ETS=9.2+/-0.9 mm/kg; p=0.001) ventricular diameters adjusted for body weight. Fractional shortening (C=53+/-4.8%, ETS=48+/- 3.3%; p=0.031) and ejection fraction (C=0.89+/-0.03, ETS=0.86+/-0.02; p=0.030) were smaller in the ETS group. Myocyte cross-sectional area (C=245+/-8 microm2, ETS=253+/-8 microm2; p=0.028) was higher in ETS rats. There were no differences in MMP-2 (C=50+/-14%; ETS=43+/-11%, p=0.228) or MMP-9 (C=0.36+/-0.3%; ETS=0.62+/-0.3%, p=0.630) activity between the groups. CONCLUSION: MMP-2 and MMP-9 did not participate in the remodelling process induced by tobacco smoke exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castardeli et al. (2007) studied Cardiac remodelling (n=18). Tobacco smoke exposure vs. Control (no tobacco smoke exposure) was evaluated on MMP-2 activity (p=0.228). Tobacco smoke exposure induced cardiac remodelling in rats but did not significantly alter MMP-2 (43% vs 50%, p=0.228) or MMP-9 (0.62% vs 0.36%, p=0.630) activity compared to controls.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: