4.3 Article

Impaired myogenic response and autoregulation of cerebral blood flow is rescued in CYP4A1 transgenic Dahl salt-sensitive rat

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00256.2014

关键词

CYP4A; cerebral circulation; myogenic response; middle cerebral artery; autoregulation of cerebral blood flow

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01-HL36279, DK-104184, HL-101681, OD-8396]
  2. NIH [1 PO1-GM-104357]
  3. American Heart Association [11POST7520052, 14SDG20160020, 13SDG14000006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have reported that a reduction in renal production of 20-HETE contributes to development of hypertension in Dahl salt-sensitive (SS) rats. The present study examined whether 20-HETE production is also reduced in the cerebral vasculature of SS rats and whether this impairs the myogenic response and autoregulation of cerebral blood flow (CBF). The production of 20-HETE, the myogenic response of middle cerebral arteries (MCA), and autoregulation of CBF were compared in SS, SS-5(BN) rats and a newly generated CYP4A1 transgenic rat. 20-HETE production was 6-fold higher in cerebral arteries of CYP4A1 and SS-5(BN) than in SS rats. The diameter of the MCA decreased to 70 +/- 3% to 65 +/- 6% in CYP4A1 and SS-5(BN) rats when pressure was increased from 40 to 140 mmHg. In contrast, the myogenic response of MCA isolated from SS rats did not constrict. Administration of a 20-HETE synthesis inhibitor, HET0016, abolished the myogenic response of MCA in CYP4A1 and SS-5(BN) rats but had no effect in SS rats. Autoregulation of CBF was impaired in SS rats compared with CYP4A1 and SS-5(BN) rats. Blood-brain barrier leakage was 5-fold higher in the brain of SS rats than in SS-5(BN) and SS. CYP4A1 rats. These findings indicate that a genetic deficiency in the formation of 20-HETE contributes to an impaired myogenic response in MCA and autoregulation of CBF in SS rats and this may contribute to vascular remodeling and cerebral injury following the onset of hypertension.

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

4.3
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