Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Author's Takes
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Aging (Upcoming)
    • Next-Generation Sequencing in Medicine (Jun 2022)
    • New Therapeutic Targets in Cardiovascular Diseases (Mar 2022)
    • Immunometabolism (Jan 2022)
    • Circadian Rhythm (Oct 2021)
    • Gut-Brain Axis (Jul 2021)
    • Tumor Microenvironment (Mar 2021)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Commentaries
    • Concise Communication
    • Editorials
    • Viewpoint
    • Top read articles
  • Clinical Medicine
  • JCI This Month
    • Current issue
    • Past issues

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Author's Takes
  • In-Press Preview
  • Commentaries
  • Concise Communication
  • Editorials
  • Viewpoint
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Alerts
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
A comparison of the antiatherogenic effects of probucol and of a structural analogue of probucol in low density lipoprotein receptor-deficient rabbits.
J Fruebis, … , H A Dresel, T E Carew
J Fruebis, … , H A Dresel, T E Carew
Published July 1, 1994
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1994;94(1):392-398. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI117334.
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

A comparison of the antiatherogenic effects of probucol and of a structural analogue of probucol in low density lipoprotein receptor-deficient rabbits.

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

The efficacies of probucol and a close structural analogue as antioxidants in the prevention of atherogenesis in LDL receptor-deficient rabbits were compared. The antioxidant potency of the analogue in vitro was equal to that of probucol. Its biological availability was much greater: almost comparable concentrations in total plasma were achieved by feeding 1% probucol (wt/wt) and 0.05% analogue (wt/wt). Total plasma concentrations were comparable, but the concentration of probucol within the LDL fraction was about twice that of the analogue. Probucol slowed lesion progression by almost 50%, confirming earlier reports; the analogue, however, showed no detectable inhibitory effect on atherogenesis. Resistance of LDL to oxidation was measured at the end of the study by incubating it with Cu2+ and measuring the rate of diene conjugation. Probucol prolonged diene conjugation lag time from the control value of 130 min to values > 1,000 min. The analogue approximately tripled the lag time (mean, 410 min) and yet failed to slow the atherogenic process. The results suggest that LDL resistance to oxidation must reach some threshold level before there is significant protection against atherogenesis. However, probucol has additional biological effects, possibly not shared by the analogue, that could contribute to its antiatherogenic potential.

Authors

J Fruebis, D Steinberg, H A Dresel, T E Carew

×

Full Text PDF | Download (1.53 MB)


Copyright © 2022 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts