Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • 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
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • Vascular Malformations (Apr 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Usage Information

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 Article has an altmetric score of 3

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

×

Usage data is cumulative from June 2024 through June 2025.

Usage JCI PMC
Text version 203 0
PDF 42 9
Scanned page 261 0
Citation downloads 57 0
Totals 563 9
Total Views 572
(Click and drag on plot area to zoom in. Click legend items above to toggle)

Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.

Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.

Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts

Referenced in 15 patents
10 readers on Mendeley
See more details