4.5 Article

Twenty-Four-Hour Exposure to Altered Blood Flow Modifies Endothelial Ca2+-Activated K+ Channels in Rat Mesenteric Arteries

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC PHARMACOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL THERAPEUTICS
DOI: 10.1124/jpet.109.161448

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Community [LSHM-CT-2003-503254]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We tested the hypothesis that changes in arterial blood flow modify the function of endothelial Ca2+-activated K+ channels [calcium-activated K+ channel (K-Ca), small-conductance calcium-activated K+ channel (SK3), and intermediate calcium-activated K+ channel (IK1)] before arterial structural remodeling. In rats, mesenteric arteries were exposed to increased [+90%, high flow (HF)] or reduced blood flow [-90%, low flow (LF)] and analyzed 24 h later. There were no detectable changes in arterial structure or in expression level of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase, SK3, or IK1. Arterial relaxing responses to acetylcholine and 3-oxime-6,7-dichlore-1H-indole-2,3-dione (NS309; activator of SK3 and IK1) were measured in the absence and presence of endothelium, NO, and prostanoid blockers, and 6,12,19,20,25,26-hexahydro-5,27: 13,18: 21,24-trietheno-11,7-metheno-7H-dibenzo [b,n] [1,5,12,16]tetraazacyclotricosine-5,13-diium dibromide (UCL 1684; inhibitor of SK3) or 1-[(2-chlorophenyl)diphenylmethyl]-1H-pyrazole (TRAM-34; inhibitor of IK1). In LF arteries, endothelium-dependent relaxation was markedly reduced, due to a reduction in the endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor (EDHF) response. In HF arteries, the balance between the NO/prostanoid versus EDHF response was unaltered. However, the contribution of IK1 to the EDHF response was enhanced, as indicated by a larger effect of TRAM-34 and a larger residual NS309-induced relaxation in the presence of UCL 1684. Reduction of blood flow selectively blunts EDHF relaxation in resistance arteries through inhibition of the function of K-Ca channels. An increase in blood flow leads to a more prominent role of IK1 channels in this relaxation.

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

4.5
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