4.6 Article

Differences in angiotensin (1-7) between men and women

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00897.2014

关键词

ANG-(1-7), sex; blood pressure; renin-angiotensin system

资金

  1. American Heart Association Grant [10SDG3050006]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grant [1R01 HL-093271-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In experimental animal models of hypertension, angiotensin (1-7) [ANG-(1-7)] is higher in females compared with males; however, it is less clear whether the same applies to humans. Therefore, this study sought to compare circulating concentrations of ANG-(1-7) in apparently healthy men and women under normal physiological conditions. With the use of a cross-sectional experimental design, blood was collected in EDTA anticoagulant from 42 volunteers (21 men and 21 women; and age range, 19-48 yr) for analysis of plasma concentrations of ANG-(1-7) and ANG II. Blood pressure was measured and vascular endothelial function was determined (n = 25) using the brachial artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) test. As a result, women exhibited a higher circulating concentration of ANG-(1-7) (P = 0.04) compared with men, whereas values of ANG II were similar between groups. Baseline arterial diameter, peak diameter, and shear rate were significantly greater (P < 0.02) in men compared with women. No significant differences in FMD, FMD normalized for shear, or time to peak dilation were observed between men and women. In addition, a positive correlation between ANG-(1-7) and FMD (P = 0.04) and negative association between ANG-(1-7) with ANG II (P = 0.01) were only identified in men, whereas a positive relationship between ANG-(1-7) and diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.03) was observed in women. In conclusion:, women exhibit significantly higher plasma concentrations of ANG-(1-7) compared with men. In addition, this study describes a relationship between ANG-(1-7), vascular function, and diastolic blood pressure that appears to be sex dependent.

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