4.4 Article

Sex differences in the drinking response to angiotensin II (AngII): Effect of body weight

期刊

HORMONES AND BEHAVIOR
卷 93, 期 -, 页码 128-136

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.05.013

关键词

Water intake; Saline intake; Estrous cycle; ATIR

资金

  1. NIH [HL091911, DK107500, DK098841]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sex differences in fluid intake stimulated by angiotensin II (AngII) have been reported, but the direction of the differences is inconsistent. To resolve these discrepancies, we measured water intake by male and female rats given AngII. Males drank more than females, but when intake was normalized to body weight, the sex difference was reversed. Weight-matched males and females, however, had no difference in intake. Using a linear mixed model analysis, we found that intake was influenced by weight, sex, and AngIl dose. We used linear regression to disentangle these effects further. Comparison of regression coefficients revealed sex and weight differences at high doses of AngII. Specifically, after 100 ng AngII, weight was a predictor of intake in males, but not in females. Next, we tested for differences in AngII-induced intake in male and females allowed to drink both water and saline. Again, males drank more water than females, but females showed a stronger preference for saline. Drinking microstructure analysis suggested that these differences were mediated by postingestive signals and more bottle switches by the females. Finally, we probed for differences in the expression of components of the renin-angiotensin system in the brains of males and females and found sex differences in several genes in discrete brain regions. These results provide new information to help understand key sex differences in ingestive behaviors, and highlight the need for additional research to understand baseline sex differences, particularly in light of the new NIH initiative to balance sex in biomedical research. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
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