4.6 Article

Vasodilatory effects of the selective GPER agonist G-1 is maximal in arteries of postmenopausal women

期刊

MATURITAS
卷 78, 期 2, 页码 123-130

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.04.002

关键词

GPER; Cardiovascular diseases; Endothelium; Vascular smooth muscle cells; Vasodilation; Smooth muscle

资金

  1. Centre of Gender Medicine at the Karolinska Institutet
  2. Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation
  3. Karolinska Institutet
  4. Swedish Society of Medicine
  5. MIUR Grant entitled Preterm birth: molecular, biochemical and biophysical markers of the feto-placental unit [prot. 20102CHST5]
  6. Stiftelsen Olle Engkvist Byggare

向作者/读者索取更多资源

G-protein-coupled estrogen receptors (GPERs) have been proposed to mediate estrogen-mediated vasodilation. The presence of GPER-dependent vasodilation in human resistance-sized arteries (HRAs) or its signal transduction pathways have not been investigated. HRAs in subcutaneous fat tissues (biopsies from postmenopausal women (PMW), age-matched men (M) and pregnant women (PGW)) were mounted for in vitro isometric force recording. Vasodilation induced by G-1 (selective GPER-agonist, 3 p,M) from HRAs pre-contracted with norepinephrine amounted to 40 +/- 5% in PMW, significantly larger than those obtained from M (20 +/- 5%) or PGW (20 +/- 5%). L-NAME (nitric oxide (NO) synthase inhibitor) abolished these relaxations in PGW, attenuated them in PMW and had no effect in M. Immunohistochemical analysis confirmed the presence of GPER in both smooth muscle and endothelial cells of HRA with maximum expression in PGW. In cultured human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), G-1 increased NO-synthesis concentration-dependently through higher expressions of endothelial NO-synthase (eNOS) and through enhanced phosphorylation of eNOS on Ser(1177). In conclusion, GPER vasodilates human resistance arteries through various activating mechanisms of the eNOS-signaling pathway. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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