4.6 Review

Influence of High Hemoglobin-Oxygen Affinity on Humans During Hypoxia

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2021.763933

关键词

altitude acclimatization; high-altitude; oxygen transport; exercise; VO2max (maximal oxygen uptake); high affinity hemoglobin (Hb)

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R-35-HL139854]
  2. Mayo Foundation
  3. Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences [NIH-K01-HL148144-01A1]
  4. Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship
  6. [NIH-T32-HL105355-10]
  7. [PDF-532926-2019]
  8. [NIH-F32-HL-154320-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review examines the influence of high Hb-O-2 affinity on cardiovascular and respiratory adjustments during hypoxia, comparing the physiological responses of humans with high Hb-O-2 affinity to those with normal Hb-O-2 affinity.
Humans elicit a robust series of physiological responses to maintain adequate oxygen delivery during hypoxia, including a transient reduction in hemoglobin-oxygen (Hb-O-2) affinity. However, high Hb-O-2 affinity has been identified as a beneficial adaptation in several species that have been exposed to high altitude for generations. The observed differences in Hb-O-2 affinity between humans and species adapted to high altitude pose a central question: is higher or lower Hb-O-2 affinity in humans more advantageous when O-2 availability is limited? Humans with genetic mutations in hemoglobin structure resulting in high Hb-O-2 affinity have shown attenuated cardiorespiratory adjustments during hypoxia both at rest and during exercise, providing unique insight into this central question. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to examine the influence of high Hb-O-2 affinity during hypoxia through comparison of cardiovascular and respiratory adjustments elicited by humans with high Hb-O-2 affinity compared to those with normal Hb-O-2 affinity.

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