MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diastolic Dysfunction is Generated in Mice with Knockout of Smoothelin‐like 1 Protein

2018· article· en· W3173267229 on OpenAlexaffabout
Megha Murali, Darrell D. Belke, Sara Turner, Mona Chappellaz, William C. Cole, Justin A. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicKruppel-like factors research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineDiastoleHeart failureEjection fractionHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionCardiac function curveEndothelial dysfunctionBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Ultimately, heart failure (HF) is the common final outcome for most patients with CVD, and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has gained increasing prevalence. Clinical evidence associates HFpEF with microvascular dysfunction and endothelial inflammation, which in turn drive pathologic cardiac remodeling. No therapeutics are available for improving outcomes of HFpEF patients; thus, further research is required to better understand its etiology since the molecular pathways leading to HFpEF are not confined to one pathology. Of particular note, our recent experiments reveal a novel role for the smoothelin‐like 1 (SMTNL1) protein in the endothelium which when disturbed drives dramatic alterations in systemic inflammation, endothelial functional responses, and cardiovascular performance. OBJECTIVE The study examined the impact of SMTNL1 deficiency on cardiac function in male murine models. METHODS SMTNL1 global knockout (KO) mice (10‐week old, young male) were anesthetized by isoflurane and underwent M‐mode echocardiographic (ECG) imaging (Vevo770, Visual Sonics, Canada), followed by left ventricular (LV) catheterization (PVR 1045, Millar Instruments, Houston, TX) and pressure‐volume (PV) loop measurements to assess the systolic‐diastolic and hemodynamic parameters of cardiac function. The background strain 129S6 wildtype (WT) mice served as the control group. Mice were terminated at the end of PV loop procedures, and serum was collected for detection of circulating markers (Luminex array, EveTechnologies Inc.). RESULTS Gross dissection revealed distinct cardiac morphology; hearts from KO animals were significantly smaller than WT littermates (~12% smaller HM:TL ratios), but the proportion of heart mass taken up by LV was greater (~10% larger LV:HM ratios). The non‐invasive ECG analysis of KO mice showed normal ejection fraction (%EF: 54.5±3.3 vs 44.0±3.0) and fractional shortening (%FS: 28.2±2.2 vs 21.7±1.7) relative to the WT counterparts. However, PV loop analysis revealed diastolic dysfunction with significantly increased end diastolic pressure (EDP: 11.6±1.7 vs 4.9±1.8 mmHg, p<0.05) and LV relaxation time (Tau; 11.7±0.4 vs 7.0±0.4 ms, p<0.0001) along with a steeper end diastolic PV relationship (EDPVR: 0.55±0.14 vs 0.22±0.06, p<0.05) an indicator of stiffer heart, in KO group when compared to the WT group. Additionally, circulating serum markers such as sE‐selectin and pro‐MMP9 were elevated in the KO mice. CONCLUSION In the present study, we have identified intriguing linkages for SMTNL1 and pathophysiological definitions of diastolic dysfunction, and suggest SMTNL1 knockout animals represent a new pre‐clinical model to examine the development of HF‐pEF. However, the pathophysiological role of SMTNL1 protein in the regulation of cardiac hemodynamics, potentially through endothelial inflammation and microvascular dysfunction requires further study. Support or Funding Information ‐Libin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta, University of Calgary ‐Achievers in Medicine Scholarship from Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary ‐CIHR Travel award This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicKruppel-like factors researchFrench-language works237,207