4.7 Article

Effects of renovascular hypertension on reproductive function in male rats

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 80, 期 17, 页码 1627-1634

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2007.01.030

关键词

renovascular hypertension; reproductive function; angiotensin II; prolactin; sexual behavior

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The present study investigated the effects of renovascular hypertension (2K/1C model) on the reproductive function of male rats, represented by sexual behavior, plasma prolactin (PRL), luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and testosterone, and spermatogenesis. Methods: The present experiments were performed to investigate the reproductive function of 2K/1C male Wistar rats and compare with 2K/1C male rats successfully treated for hypertension with nifedipine and was divided in the following groups: (1) Sham +V (n=10): Sham-operated males with vehicle used; (2) Sham+N (n = 13): Sham-operated males treated with nifedipine (10 mg/kg/day); (3) 2K/1C+V (n = 14): 2K/1C-operated males with vehicle used; and (4) 2K/1C+N (n=16): 2K/1C-operated males treated with nifedipine. Results: The data indicated an association between hypertension induced by the 2K/1C model and reduction of reproductive function, as demonstrated by an impairment of sexual behavior, higher plasma PRL and lower plasma testosterone and FSH. The treatment with nifedipine prevented the reduction of sexual behavior and the increase of plasma PRL, but did not alter the reduction of plasma testosterone and FSH and spermatogenesis of 2K/1C rats. Conclusions: Reproductive function is adversely affected in the 2K/1C animal model, and high blood pressure plays a role in the modulation of plasma PRL and sexual behavior. Moreover, other events, without high blood pressure, but with high plasma renin activity associated with the 2K/1C model, contribute directly to the reduction of plasma testosterone and FSH and impaired spermatogenesis. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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