4.6 Article

Inhibition of Na+/K+-ATPase and K-IR channels abolishes hypoxic hyperaemia in resting but not contracting skeletal muscle of humans

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 596, 期 15, 页码 3371-3389

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/JP275913

关键词

hypoxia; blood flow; vasodilatation

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [HL095573]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exercise hyperaemia in hypoxia is augmented relative to the same exercise intensity in normoxia. During moderate-intensity handgrip exercise, endothelium-derived nitric oxide (NO) and vasodilating prostaglandins (PGs) contribute to similar to 50% of the augmented forearm blood flow (FBF) response to hypoxic exercise (HypEx), although the mechanism(s) underlying the remaining response are unclear. We hypothesized that combined inhibition of NO, PGs, Na+/K+-ATPase and inwardly rectifying potassium (K-IR) channels would abolish the augmented hyperaemic response in HypEx. In healthy young adults, FBF responses were measured (Doppler ultrasound) and forearm vascular conductance was calculated during 5 min of rhythmic handgrip exercise at 20% maximum voluntary contraction under regional sympathoadrenal inhibition in normoxia and isocapnic HypEx (O-2 saturation similar to 80%). Compared to control, combined inhibition of NO, PGs, Na+/K+-ATPase and K-IR channels (L-NMMA+ketorolac+ouabain+BaCl2; Protocol 1; n=10) blunted the compensatory increase in FBF during HypEx by similar to 50% (29 +/- 6 mL min(-1) vs. 628 mL min(-1), respectively, P<0.05). By contrast, ouabain+BaCl2 alone (Protocol 2; n=10) did not affect this augmented hyperaemic response (50 +/- 11 mL min(-1) vs. 60 +/- 13 mL min(-1), respectively, P>0.05). However, the blocked condition in both protocols abolished the hyperaemic response to hypoxia at rest (P<0.05). We conclude that activation of Na+/K+-ATPase and K-IR channels is involved in the hyperaemic response to hypoxia at rest, although it does not contribute to the augmented exercise hyperaemia during hypoxia in humans.

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