Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Marked disparity of microRNA modulation by cGMP-selective PDE5 versus PDE9 inhibitors in heart disease
Kristen M. Kokkonen-Simon, … , Dong Ik Lee, David A. Kass
Kristen M. Kokkonen-Simon, … , Dong Ik Lee, David A. Kass
Published August 9, 2018
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2018;3(15):e121739. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.121739.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Cardiology Cell biology

Marked disparity of microRNA modulation by cGMP-selective PDE5 versus PDE9 inhibitors in heart disease

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

MicroRNAs (miRs) posttranscriptionally regulate mRNA and its translation into protein, and are considered master controllers of genes modulating normal physiology and disease. There is growing interest in how miRs change with drug treatment, and leveraging this for precision guided therapy. Here we contrast 2 closely related therapies, inhibitors of phosphodiesterase type 5 or type 9 (PDE5-I, PDE9-I), given to mice subjected to sustained cardiac pressure overload (PO). Both inhibitors augment cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) to activate protein kinase G, with PDE5-I regulating nitric oxide (NO) and PDE9-I natriuretic peptide–dependent signaling. While both produced strong phenotypic improvement of PO pathobiology, they surprisingly showed binary differences in miR profiles; PDE5-I broadly reduces more than 120 miRs, including nearly half those increased by PO, whereas PDE9-I has minimal impact on any miR (P < 0.0001). The disparity evolves after pre-miR processing and is organ specific. Lastly, even enhancing NO-coupled cGMP by different methods leads to altered miR regulation. Thus, seemingly similar therapeutic interventions can be barcoded by profound differences in miR signatures, and reversing disease-associated miR changes is not required for therapy success.

Authors

Kristen M. Kokkonen-Simon, Amir Saberi, Taishi Nakamura, Mark J. Ranek, Guangshuo Zhu, Djahida Bedja, Michaela Kuhn, Marc K. Halushka, Dong Ik Lee, David A. Kass

×

Figure 4

Effect on miRs from alternative stimulation of GC-1 or GC-2A signaling.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
Effect on miRs from alternative stimulation of GC-1 or GC-2A signaling.
...
(A and B) Left ventricular myocardium from mice subjected to sham or PO surgery and subsequently given either vehicle, PDE5-I (Sil), or an sGC activator (BAY 60-2770) were analyzed by qRT-PCR for (A) prohypertrophic miRs and (B) antihypertrophic miRs. Sil downregulates both categories of miRs, whereas BAY downregulates only prohypertrophic miRs. n = 4–11 per group. *P < 0.05 compared with PO for Sil and BAY analysis (smaller P values are not differentiated by different symbols, though some comparisons were very significant). (C) Mice overexpressing GC-2A and WT littermate controls were subjected to sham or PO surgery (n = 3–5 per group). Myocardial tissue was used for qRT-PCR analysis of miRs. *P < 0.05 as compared with the indicated group for GC-2A analysis. All data are presented as the mean ± SEM. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s post hoc test, or Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s post hoc test.

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts