4.1 Article

Associations between High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein and Membrane Fluidity of Red Blood Cells in Hypertensive Elderly Men: An Electron Spin Resonance Study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 2012, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2012/292803

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, Culture and Technology of Japan [15590604, 18590658, 20590710, 23590901]
  2. Daiwa Health Foundation
  3. UeharaMemorial Foundation
  4. Takeda Science Foundation
  5. Salt Science Foundation
  6. Mitsui Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent evidence indicates that high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), an acute phase of an inflammatory marker, might be associated with atherosclerosis, hypertension, and other cardiovascular diseases. The present study was performed to assess the possible link between plasma hs-CRP and membrane fluidity (a reciprocal value of membrane microviscosity) in hypertensive elderly men. We measured the membrane fluidity of red blood cells (RBCs) in hypertensive and normotensive elderly men using an electron spin resonance and spin-labeling method. Membrane fluidity of RBCs was decreased in hypertensive elderly men compared with normotensive elderly men. Plasma hs-CRP levels were significantly higher in hypertensive elderly men than in normotensive elderly men. In contrast, plasma nitric-oxide- (NO-) metabolite levels were lower in hypertensive elderly men than in normotensive elderlymen. The reduced membrane fluidity of RBCs was associated with increased plasma hs-CRP and decreased plasma NO-metabolite levels. In a multivariate regression analysis, plasma hs-CRP was an independent determinant of membrane fluidity of RBCs after adjustment for general risk factors. The results suggest that CRP might have a close correlation with the rheologic behavior of RBCs and the microcirculation and would contribute, at least in part, to the circulatory dysfunction and vascular complications in hypertensive elderly men.

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