3.8 Review

Endothelium: A Target for Harmful Actions of Metals

Journal

CURRENT HYPERTENSION REVIEWS
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 201-209

Publisher

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1573402115666190115153759

Keywords

Heavy metals; endothelium; mercury; lead; cadmium; vascular reactivity

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  2. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa e Inovacao do Espirito Santo (FAPES)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Long-term exposure to heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and cadmium can harm cardiovascular function, potentially increasing the risk of hypertension. Even at low doses or concentrations, these metals can impact vascular reactivity.
The use of heavy metals is closely linked to the history of mankind. They have been used as important materials in a wide variety of human activities such as manufacturing utensils and tools. Such extended use has significantly increased professional and environmental exposure to mercury, lead and cadmium. These metals are known to produce hypertension in humans and animals and, among other effects, they can also affect endothelial function. Results described here suggest that mercury, lead and cadmium affect vascular reactivity, even at low doses or concentrations. Several vascular actions are mediated by the endothelium via increasing the production of free radicals and angiotensin II by local ACE stimulation. These results provide further evidence that these toxic metals, even at low doses, are an environmental risk factor to the exposed population. These results also suggest that continuous exposure to these metals, followed by their absorption and progressive accumulation in the body, may be hazardous to cardiovascular function. Therefore, the current reference values, which are considered safe, need to be reduced.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available