Hypercholesterolemia and chronic ischemia alter myocardial responses to selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition

ObjectiveCyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors have been implicated in adverse cardiac events. We hypothesize that hypercholesterolemia and ischemia may alter the myocardial response to the cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor celecoxib.MethodsYorkshire swine fed normal chow (CX, n = 6) or high-cholesterol diet (HCX, n = 6) underwent placement of an Ameroid constrictor on the left circumflex artery and were started on celecoxib (200 mg/day). After 7 weeks, ischemic and nonischemic myocardium was analyzed for thrombogenic ratio (thromboxane content divided by prostacyclin content), total protein oxidative stress, and expression of prostacyclin synthase, thromboxane synthase, myeloperoxidase, and superoxide dismutase. Cardiac function, tissue perfusion, and vessel density were measured.ResultsHCX animals were significantly hypercholesterolemic compared with CX animals. Thrombogenic ratio was significantly higher in the HCX group than in the CX group, but prostacyclin and thromboxane synthase expression was similar in all tissues. Myocardial perfusion was decreased in the HCX group compared with the CX group. Total oxidative stress, myeloperoxidase, and superoxide dismutase were increased in ischemic tissue compared with nonischemic tissues, but there was no diet-induced difference between groups. There was no difference in capillary or arteriolar density between groups. Left ventricular contractility was greater in the HCX group than in the CX group, but there was no significant difference in heart rate, mean arterial pressure, or left ventricular pressure.ConclusionsHypercholesterolemic patients using celecoxib may be at higher risk for thrombotic events than those with normal cholesterol, but the relationship between dyslipidemia, ischemia, and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition is likely much more complicated than originally thought

Health position paper and redox perspectives on reactive oxygen species as signals and targets of cardioprotection

The present review summarizes the beneficial and detrimental roles of reactive oxygen species in myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury and cardioprotection. In the first part, the continued need for cardioprotection beyond that by rapid reperfusion of acute myocardial infarction is emphasized. Then, pathomechanisms of myocardial ischemia/reperfusion to the myocardium and the coronary circulation and the different modes of cell death in myocardial infarction are characterized. Different mechanical and pharmacological interventions to protect the ischemic/reperfused myocardium in elective percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass grafting, in acute myocardial infarction and in cardiotoxicity from cancer therapy are detailed. The second part keeps the focus on ROS providing a comprehensive overview of molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in ischemia/reperfusion injury. Starting from mitochondria as the main sources and targets of ROS in ischemic/reperfused myocardium, a complex network of cellular and extracellular processes is discussed, including relationships with Ca2+ homeostasis, thiol group redox balance, hydrogen sulfide modulation, cross-talk with NAPDH oxidases, exosomes, cytokines and growth factors. While mechanistic insights are needed to improve our current therapeutic approaches, advancements in knowledge of ROS-mediated processes indicate that detrimental facets of oxidative stress are opposed by ROS requirement for physiological and protective reactions. This inevitable contrast is likely to underlie unsuccessful clinical trials and limits the development of novel cardioprotective interventions simply based upon ROS removal

Endothelial dysfunction of bypass graft: Direct comparison of In Vitro and In Vivo models of ischemia-reperfusion injury

BACKGROUND: Although, ischemia/reperfusion induced vascular dysfunction has been widely described, no comparative study of in vivo- and in vitro-models exist. In this study, we provide a direct comparison between models (A) ischemic storage and in-vitro reoxygenation (B) ischemic storage and in vitro reperfusion (C) ischemic storage and in-vivo reperfusion. METHODS AND RESULTS: Aortic arches from rats were stored for 2 hours in saline. Arches were then (A) in vitro reoxygenated (B) in vitro incubated in hypochlorite for 30 minutes (C) in vivo reperfused after heterotransplantation (2, 24 hours and 7 days reperfusion). Endothelium-dependent and independent vasorelaxations were assessed in organ bath. DNA strand breaks were assessed by TUNEL-method, mRNA expressions (caspase-3, bax, bcl-2, eNOS) by quantitative real-time PCR, proteins by Western blot analysis and the expression of CD-31 by immunochemistry. Endothelium-dependent maximal relaxation was drastically reduced in the in-vivo models compared to ischemic storage and in-vitro reperfusion group, and no difference showed between ischemic storage and control group. CD31-staining showed significantly lower endothelium surface ratio in-vivo, which correlated with TUNEL-positive ratio. Increased mRNA and protein levels of pro- and anti-apoptotic gens indicated a significantly higher damage in the in-vivo models. CONCLUSION: Even short-period of ischemia induces severe endothelial damage (in-vivo reperfusion model). In-vitro models of ischemia-reperfusion injury can be limitedly suited for reliable investigations. Time course of endothelial stunning is also described

[Comment] Redefine statistical significance

The lack of reproducibility of scientific studies has caused growing concern over the credibility of claims of new discoveries based on “statistically significant” findings. There has been much progress toward documenting and addressing several causes of this lack of reproducibility (e.g., multiple testing, P-hacking, publication bias, and under-powered studies). However, we believe that a leading cause of non-reproducibility has not yet been adequately addressed: Statistical standards of evidence for claiming discoveries in many fields of science are simply too low. Associating “statistically significant” findings with P < 0.05 results in a high rate of false positives even in the absence of other experimental, procedural and reporting problems. For fields where the threshold for defining statistical significance is P<0.05, we propose a change to P<0.005. This simple step would immediately improve the reproducibility of scientific research in many fields. Results that would currently be called “significant” but do not meet the new threshold should instead be called “suggestive.” While statisticians have known the relative weakness of using P≈0.05 as a threshold for discovery and the proposal to lower it to 0.005 is not new (1, 2), a critical mass of researchers now endorse this change. We restrict our recommendation to claims of discovery of new effects. We do not address the appropriate threshold for confirmatory or contradictory replications of existing claims. We also do not advocate changes to discovery thresholds in fields that have already adopted more stringent standards (e.g., genomics and high-energy physics research; see Potential Objections below). We also restrict our recommendation to studies that conduct null hypothesis significance tests. We have diverse views about how best to improve reproducibility, and many of us believe that other ways of summarizing the data, such as Bayes factors or other posterior summaries based on clearly articulated model assumptions, are preferable to P-values. However, changing the P-value threshold is simple and might quickly achieve broad acceptance

The urgent need for integrated science to fight COVID-19 pandemic and beyond

The COVID-19 pandemic has become the leading societal concern. The pandemic has shown that the public health concern is not only a medical problem, but also afects society as a whole; so, it has also become the leading scientifc concern. We discuss in this treatise the importance of bringing the world’s scientists together to fnd efective solu‑ tions for controlling the pandemic. By applying novel research frameworks, interdisciplinary collaboration promises to manage the pandemic’s consequences and prevent recurrences of similar pandemics

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field