4.7 Article

Contraction stimulates nitric oxide-independent microvascular recruitment and increases muscle insulin uptake

期刊

DIABETES
卷 56, 期 9, 页码 2194-2200

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db07-0020

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-57878, DK-063609] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined whether contraction-induced muscle microvascular recruitment would expand the surface area for insulin and nutrient exchange and thereby contribute to insulinmediated glucose disposal. We measured in vivo rat hindlimb microvascular blood volume (MBV) using contrast ultrasound and femoral blood flow (FBF) using Doppler ultrasound in response to a stimulation frequency range. Ten minutes of 0.1-Hz isometric contraction more than doubled MBV (P < 0.05; n = 6) without affecting FBF (n = 7), whereas frequencies >0.5 Hz increased both. Specific inhibition of nitric oxide (NO) synthase with N-omega-L-nitro-arginine-methyl ester (n = 5) significantly elevated mean arterial pressure by similar to 30 mmHg but had no effect on basal FBF or MBV. We next examined whether selectively elevating MBV without increasing FBF (0.1-Hz contractions) increased muscle uptake of albumin-bound Evans blue dye (EBD). Stimulation at 0.1 Hz (10 min) elicited more than twofold increases in EBD content (micrograms EBD per gram dry tissue) in stimulated versus contralateral muscle (n = 8; 52.2 +/- 3.8 vs. 20 +/- 2.5, respectively; P < 0.001). We then measured muscle uptake of EBD and I-125-labeled insulin (dpm per gram dry tissue) with 0.1-Hz stimulation (n = 6). Uptake of EBD (19.1 +/- 3.8 vs. 9.9 +/- 1; P < 0.05) and I-125-insulin (5,300 +/- 800 vs. 4,244 +/- 903; P < 0.05) was greater in stimulated muscle versus control. Low-frequency contraction increases muscle MBV by a NO-independent pathway and facilitates muscle uptake of albumin and insulin in the absence of blood flow increases. This microvascular response may, in part, explain enhanced insulin action in exercising skeletal muscle.

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

4.7
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