4.3 Article

Effects of different enantiomers of amlodipine on lipid profiles and vasomotor factors in atherosclerotic rabbits

Journal

OPEN LIFE SCIENCES
Volume 16, Issue 1, Pages 899-908

Publisher

DE GRUYTER POLAND SP Z O O
DOI: 10.1515/biol-2021-0077

Keywords

atherosclerosis; R-amlodipine; S-amlodipine; VECs

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that different enantiomers of amlodipine did not affect lipid profiles and eNOS levels in the rabbit atherosclerosis model, but were able to decrease ET-1 expression. Serum NO and iNOS levels were significantly reduced in the drug intervention groups.
This research aimed to describe the functions of vascular endothelial cells (VECs) in protecting target organs and the anti-atherosclerotic effects of different enantiomers of amlodipine on a rabbit model of atherosclerosis. Thirty male New Zealand white rabbits were randomly allocated to four groups (nA = 9, nB = 7, nC = 7, and nD = 7 rabbits): rabbits in group-A (control group) were fed a high-fat diet, group-B rabbits were fed a high-fat diet plus 2.5 mg/kg/day S-amlodipine, group-C rabbits were fed a high-fat diet plus 2.5 mg/kg/day R-amlodipine, and group-D rabbits were fed a high-fat diet plus 5 mg/kg/day racemic amlodipine. Different enantiomers of amlodipine did not influence lipid profiles and serum level of eNOS in the rabbit atherosclerosis model but decreased ET-1 expression to some extent. The serum NO and iNOS levels in the drug intervention groups were significantly reduced. No significant differences in the rabbits' body weights were observed. At the 4th and 8th weeks, the serum lipid profiles significantly increased in high cholesterol diet groups. The serum ET-1 level was significantly increased in each group of rabbits at the 8th week. Both S-amlodipine and R-amlodipine may protect the endothelium by reducing the serum ET-1 level, downregulating iNOS expression.

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