4.6 Article

Nitric oxide (NO) does not contribute to the generation or action of adenosine during exercise hyperaemia in rat hindlimb

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 587, 期 7, 页码 1579-1591

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2008.163691

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exercise hyperaemia is partly mediated by adenosine A(2A)-receptors. Adenosine can evoke nitric oxide (NO) release via endothelial A(2A)-receptors, but the role for NO in exercise hyperaemia is controversial. We have investigated the contribution of NO to hyperaemia evoked by isometric twitch contractions in its own right and in interaction with adenosine. In three groups of anaesthetized rats the effect of A(2A)-receptor inhibition with ZM241385 on femoral vascular conductance (FVC) and hindlimb O-2 consumption ((V) over dot(O2)) at rest and during isometric twitch contractions (4 Hz) was tested (i) after NO synthase inhibition with L-NAME, and when FVC had been restored by infusion of (ii) an NO donor (SNAP) or (iii) cell-permeant cGMP. Exercise hyperaemia was significantly reduced (32%) by L-NAME and further significantly attenuated by ZM241385 (60% from control). After restoring FVC with SNAP or 8-bromo-cGMP, L-NAME did not affect exercise hyperaemia, but ZM241385 still significantly reduced the hyperaemia by 25%. There was no evidence that NO limited muscle (V) over dot(O2) during contraction. These results indicate that NO is not required for adenosine release during contraction and that adenosine released during contraction does not depend on new synthesis of NO to produce vasodilatation. They also substantiate our general hypothesis that the mechanisms by which adenosine contributes to muscle vasodilatation during systemic hypoxia and exercise are different: we propose that, during muscle contraction, adenosine is released from skeletal muscle fibres independently of NO and acts directly on A(2A)-receptors on the vascular smooth muscle to cause vasodilatation.

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