4.6 Article

Cold pressor test in the rat: medullary and spinal pathways and neurotransmitters

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.646.2008

关键词

arterial pressure; barodenervation; ionotropic glutamate receptors; nucleus ambiguus; sympathetic nerve activity

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [HL-024347, HL-076248]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study was designed to delineate the medullary and spinal pathways mediating the cardiovascular responses to cold pressor test (CPT) and to identify neuro-transmitters in these pathways. Experiments were done in barodenervated, urethane-anesthetized, male Wistar rats. The CPT was performed by immersing the limbs and ventral half of the body of the rat in ice-cold water (0.5 degrees C) for 2 min. CPT elicited an immediate increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), and greater splanchnic nerve activity (GSNA). Bilateral blockade of ionotropic glutamate receptors (iGLURs) in the rostral ventrolateral medullary pressor area (RVLM) significantly attenuated the CPT-induced responses. Bilateral blockade of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptors, but not iGLURs, in the nucleus ambiguus (nAmb) significantly reduced the CPT-induced increases in HR, but not MAP. Blockade of spinal iGLURs caused a significant reduction in CPT-induced increases in MAP and GSNA, whereas the increases in HR were reduced to a lesser extent. Combination of the blockade of spinal iGLURs and bilateral vagotomy or intravenous atropine almost completely blocked CPT-induced tachycardia. Midcollicular decerebration significantly reduced CPT-induced increases in MAP and HR. These results indicated that: 1) CPT-induced increases in MAP, HR, and GSNA were mediated by activation of iGLURs in the RVLM and spinal cord, 2) activation of GABA receptors in the nAmb also contributed to the CPT-induced tachycardic responses, and 3) brain areas rostral to the brain stem also participated in the CPT-induced pressor and tachycardic responses.

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