4.7 Review

Gender differences in developmental programming of cardiovascular diseases

Journal

CLINICAL SCIENCE
Volume 130, Issue 5, Pages 337-348

Publisher

PORTLAND PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1042/CS20150611

Keywords

ageing; blood pressure; developmental programming; low birth weight; sex differences

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [HL074927, HL51971, P20GM104357]
  2. American Heart Association [GRNT19900004]
  3. NIH [T32HL105324]
  4. American Heart Association Predoctoral Fellowship [15PRE24700010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hypertension is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. Although multiple factors contribute to the pathogenesis of hypertension, studies by Dr David Barker reporting an inverse relationship between birth weight and blood pressure led to the hypothesis that slow growth during fetal life increased blood pressure and the risk for cardiovascular disease in later life. It is now recognized that growth during infancy and childhood, in addition to exposure to adverse influences during fetal life, contributes to the developmental programming of increased cardiovascular risk. Numerous epidemiological studies support the link between influences during early life and later cardiovascular health; experimental models provide proof of principle and indicate that numerous mechanisms contribute to the developmental origins of chronic disease. Sex has an impact on the severity of cardiovascular risk in experimental models of developmental insult. Yet, few studies examine the influence of sex on blood pressure and cardiovascular health in low-birth weight men and women. Fewer still assess the impact of ageing on sex differences in programmed cardiovascular risk. Thus, the aim of the present review is to highlight current data about sex differences in the developmental programming of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available