4.6 Article

Transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily 1 is essential for the generation of noxious bladder input and bladder overactivity in cystitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 177, 期 4, 页码 1537-1541

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.046

关键词

bladder; TRPV1 protein, mouse; cystitis; inflammation; mice, knockout

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We evaluated the role of transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily 1 for the generation of noxious bladder input and bladder overactivity associated with cystitis. Materials and Methods: Spinal c-fos expression triggered by innocuous bladder distention (10 cm water) was studied in sham and lipopolysaccharide inflamed transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily 1 +/+ and -/- mice. Bladder reflex activity was studied using urethane anesthesia in sham and lipopolysaccharide inflamed transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily 1 +/+ and -/- mice. Results: Inflammatory changes in the bladder of transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily 1 +/+ and -/- mice were identical. Bladder distention in sham inflamed +/+ mice induced a mean +/- SD of 4 +/- 2 Fos cells per section. Bladder distention after lipopolysaccharide inflammation increased Fos cells to 34 +/- 5 (p < 0.001). The number of Fos cells after bladder distention in sham and lipopolysaccharide inflamed -/- mice was similar (2 +/- 1 and 2 +/- 1, respectively, p > 0.05). During saline infusion of sham inflamed bladders in +/+ mice 0.46 0.14 contractions per minute were documented. In lipopolysaccharide inflamed +/+ mice that frequency was increased to 1.13 +/- 0.12 contractions per minute (p < 0.001). In sham and lipopolysaccharide inflamed -/- mice bladder frequency was similar (0.47 +/- 0.08 and 0.61 +/- 0.10, respectively, p > 0.05). Conclusions: Our data demonstrate that transient receptor potential vanilloid subfamily 1 is essential for the generation of noxious bladder input and bladder overactivity associated with cystitis.

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