4.6 Article

Role of hydrogen peroxide and the impact of glutathione peroxidase-1 in regulation of cerebral vascular tone

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1130-1137

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1038/jcbfm.2009.37

关键词

acetylcholine; basilar artery; cerebral arterioles; microcirculation; reactive oxygen species

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL-38901, NS-24621, HL-62984, HL-63943]
  2. American Heart Association in the form of a Bugher Award [0575092N]
  3. University of Iowa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although arachidonic acid (AA) has diverse vascular effects, the mechanisms that mediate these effects are incompletely defined. The goal of our study was to use genetic approaches to examine the role of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), glutathione peroxidase (Gpx1, which degrades H2O2), and CuZn-superoxide dismutase (SOD1, which produces H2O2 from superoxide) in mediating and in determining vascular responses to AA. In basilar arteries in vitro, AA produced dilation in nontransgenic mice, and this response was reduced markedly in transgenic mice overexpressing Gpx1 (Gpx1 Tg) or in those genetically deficient in SOD1. For example, AA (1 nmol/L to 1 mu mol/L) dilated the basilar artery and this response was reduced by similar to 90% in Gpx1 Tg mice (P < 0.01), although responses to acetylcholine were not altered. Dilation of cerebral arterioles in vivo in response to AA was inhibited by B50% by treatment with catalase (300 U/mL) (P < 0.05) and reduced by as much as 90% in Gpx1 Tg mice compared with that in controls (P<0.05). These results provide the first evidence that Gpx1 has functional effects in the cerebral circulation, and that AA-induced vascular effects are mediated by H2O2 produced by SOD1. In contrast, cerebral vascular responses to the endothelium-dependent agonist acetylcholine are not mediated by H2O2. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism (2009) 29, 1130-1137; doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.37; published online 8 April 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据