4.3 Article

Chronic estrogen treatment reduces vasoconstrictor responses in insulin resistant rats

Journal

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 84, Issue 11, Pages 1139-1143

Publisher

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1139/Y06-061

Keywords

estrogen; ovariectomy; insulin resistance; hypertension; vascular tone

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Previous experiments have shown that chronic estrogen treatment via Subcutaneous implants prevented insulin-induced blood pressure elevation and increased insulin sensitivity in ovariectomized female rats. In vitro vascular studies were performed using isolated mesenteric arteries to determine the effect of chronic estrogen and insulin treatments on vascular responses to vasoconstrictor agents. Female Wistar rats were assigned to the following groups: sham-operated, sham-operated plus insulin, sham-operated Plus insulin plus estrogen, ovariectomized, ovariectomized plus insulin, and ovariectomized plus insulin plus estrogen. Chronic insulin and estrogen treatments were initiated with subcutaneous placement of insulin implants (2 U/d) and 17 beta-estradiol implants (0.5 mg/pellet, 60 day release) at the back of the neck. After 8 weeks of treatment, mesenteric arteries were isolated for assessment of constrictor responses to norepinephrine and the thromboxane A(2) analogue U46619 in the presence or absence of the endothelium. The results show that chronic estrogen treatment attenuated the vascular constrictor responses to norepinephrine and U46619 only in endothelium intact vessels. Incubation with insulin did not significantly affect norepinephrine-induced vascular smooth muscle contraction. The study provides evidence that the mechanism by which estrogen prevents insulin-induced blood pressure elevation in insulin-treated ovariectomized rats is by influencing endothelium-derived vasoactive factors such as thromboxane A(2).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available