4.7 Article

Membrane Permeability Is Required for the Vasodilatory Effect of Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors in Porcine Retinal Arteries

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24098140

关键词

carbonic anhydrase; myography; arterial wall tension; membrane impermeable; porcine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous research has shown that carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs) can induce vasodilation in retinal arteriolar segments, but it is unclear which isoforms or mechanisms are responsible for this effect. In this study, four new CAIs that do not enter cell membranes but have high affinity for cytosolic and membrane-bound isoforms of CA were tested. None of these CAIs had a significant effect on arteriolar wall tension, while a membrane permeant CAI called benzolamide fully dilated all segments tested. This suggests that CAIs act as vasodilators through cellular mechanisms located in the cytoplasm of vascular cells.
It has been demonstrated previously that a variety of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors (CAIs) can induce vasodilation in pre-contracted retinal arteriolar segments although with different efficacy and potency. Since the CAIs tested so far are able to permeate cell membranes and inhibit both intracellular and extracellular isoforms of the enzyme, it is not clear whether extra- or intracellular isoforms or mechanisms are mediating their vasodilatory effects. By means of small wire myography, we have tested the effects of four new CAIs on wall tension in pre-contracted retinal arteriolar segments that demonstrably do not enter cell membranes but have high affinity to both cytosolic and membrane-bound isoforms of CA. At concentrations between 10(-6) M to 10(-3) M, none of the four membrane impermeant CAIs had any significant effect on arteriolar wall tension, while the membrane permeant CAI benzolamide (10(-3) M) fully dilated all arteriolar segments tested. This suggests that CAI act as vasodilators through cellular mechanisms located in the cytoplasm of vascular cells.

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

4.7
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