4.1 Article

Increased myogenic reactivity of uterine arteries from pregnant rats with reduced uterine perfusion pressure

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.preghy.2011.11.005

关键词

Preeclampsia; Uterine artery; Myogenic reactivity; RUPP; Vasodilation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development Grant [HD-048979]
  2. Integrated Biosciences Research Incentive Grant
  3. Department of Biology at the University of Akron

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The etiology of preeclampsia remains unknown. However, a contributing factor to this hypertensive disease of pregnancy is a reduction in uterine perfusion pressure resulting in placental ischemia. Uterine arteries may be a major regulator of this process through changes in vascular reactivity and localized blood flow. The reduced uterine perfusion pressure (RUPP) pregnant rat is an established animal model of preeclampsia pathology. Pregnant Sprague Dawley rats were used for this investigation and subjected to RUPP or SHAM surgery on Day 14 of gestation. On Day 21 of gestation, animals were terminated and resistance-caliber uterine arteries were harvested and mounted on a pressurized arteriograph to examine myogenic reactivity, agonist induced vasodilation (methacholine and VEGF), and vasoconstriction (phenylephrine and U-46619). Resistance-caliber uterine arteries from RUPP animals exhibited increased myogenic reactivity and decreased vasodilation (methacholine and VEGF) compared to SHAM uterine arteries (p < 0.05). Phenylephrine and U-46619 induced constriction was similar in uterine arteries between RUPP and SHAM rats. These results suggest that resistance-caliber uterine arteries from RUPP pregnant rats are altered to reflect a more constrictive phenotype which may play a role in the development of maternal hypertension demonstrated in these animals and thereby potentially in preeclampsia. (C) 2011 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.1
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