Search

In one of his papers Maxwell noted the reciprocity of form and force diagrams of planar trusses and gave a graphical construction relying on a 3 dimensional duality in projective space to get one diagram from the other. While there are numerous different applications and occasional alterations of the method he used and many aspects of this construction are thoroughly analysed, the nature of the projective connection between the two diagrams still remains to be investigated. This paper aims to start such analysis by presenting some basic results on how far the method can be generalized, in terms of admissible projective dualities and projections.

Introduction In the heart, subsarcolemmal (SSM), interfibrillar (IFM) and perinuclear mitochondria represent three subtypes of mitochondria. The most commonly used protease during IFM isolation is the nagarse, however, its effect on the detection of mitochondrial proteins is still unclear. Therefore, we investigated whether nagarse treatment influences the quantification of mitochondrial proteins. Methods SSM and IFM were isolated from hearts of mice and rats. During IFM isolation, nagarse activity was either stopped by centrifugation (common protocol, IFM + N) or inhibited by phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride (PMSF, IFM + N + I). The amounts of proteins located in different mitochondrial compartments (outer membrane: mitofusin 1 (MFN1) and 2 (MFN2); intermembrane space: p66shc; inner membrane (connexin 43 (Cx43)), and of protein deglycase DJ-1 were determined by Western blot. Results MFN2 and Cx43 were found predominantly in SSM isolated from mouse and rat hearts. MFN1 and p66shc were present in similar amounts in SSM and IFM + N, whereas the level of DJ-1 was higher in IFM + N compared to SSM. In IFM + N + I samples from mice, the amount of MFN2, but not that of Cx43 increased. Nagarse or nagarse inhibition by PMSF had no effect on oxygen consumption of SSM or IFM. Discussion Whereas the use of the common protocol indicates the localization of MFN2 predominantly in SSM, the inhibition of nagarse by PMSF increases the signal of MFN2 in IFM to that of in SSM, indicating an underestimation of MFN2 in IFM. Therefore, protease sensitivity should be considered when assessing distribution of mitochondrial proteins using nagarse-based isolation.

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) of the heart is exerted by brief ischemic insults affected on a remote organ or a remote area of the heart before a sustained cardiac ischemia. To date, little is known about the inter-organ transfer mechanisms of cardioprotection by RIPC. Exosomes and microvesicles/microparticles are vesicles of 30-100 nm and 100-1000 nm in diameter, respectively (collectively termed extracellular vesicles [EVs]). Their content of proteins, mRNAs and microRNAs, renders EV ideal conveyors of inter-organ communication. However, whether EVs are involved in RIPC, is unknown. Therefore, here we investigated whether (1) IPC induces release of EVs from the heart, and (2) EVs are necessary for cardioprotection by RIPC. Hearts of male Wistar rats were isolated and perfused in Langendorff mode. A group of donor hearts was exposed to 3 × 5-5 min global ischemia and reperfusion (IPC) or 30 min aerobic perfusion, while coronary perfusates were collected. Coronary perfusates of these hearts were given to another set of recipient isolated hearts. A group of recipient hearts received IPC effluent depleted of EVs by differential ultracentrifugation. Infarct size was determined after 30 min global ischemia and 120 min reperfusion. The presence or absence of EVs in perfusates was confirmed by dynamic light scattering, the EV marker HSP60 Western blot, and electron microscopy. IPC markedly increased EV release from the heart as assessed by HSP60. Administration of coronary perfusate from IPC donor hearts attenuated infarct size in non-preconditioned recipient hearts (12.9 ± 1.6% vs. 25.0 ± 2.7%), similarly to cardioprotection afforded by IPC (7.3 ± 2.7% vs. 22.1 ± 2.9%) on the donor hearts. Perfusates of IPC hearts depleted of EVs failed to exert cardioprotection in recipient hearts (22.0 ± 2.3%). This is the first demonstration that EVs released from the heart after IPC are necessary for cardioprotection by RIPC, evidencing the importance of vesicular transfer mechanisms in remote cardioprotection.