4.7 Article

Neurons of the rostral ventrolateral medulla contribute to obesity-induced hypertension in rats

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 640-646

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000254828.71253.dc

关键词

obesity; sympathetic; blood pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of the sympathetic nervous system contributes to the pathogenesis of obesity-induced hypertension. The present study sought to determine whether sympathetic regulatory neurons of the rostral ventrolateral medulla contribute to the elevated blood pressure in obese rats. Male Sprague-Dawley rats (350 to 425 g) were placed on a moderately high-fat diet (32% kcal as fat) or a low-fat (LF) diet (10.6% kcal as fat). After 13 weeks, rats fed the moderately high-fat diet segregated into obesity-prone (OP) and obesity-resistant (OR) groups based on their body weight (OP: 839 +/- 22 g; OR: 668 +/- 15 g; LF: 680 +/- 18 g; n=15 for all groups; P < 0.01). Under isoflurane anesthesia, baseline mean arterial blood pressure was significantly elevated in the OP rats versus the OR and LF rats (OP: 108 +/- 2 mm Hg; OR: 100 +/- 2 mm Hg; LF: 97 +/- 3 mm Hg; n=7; P < 0.05). Inhibition of the rostral ventrolateral medulla with bilateral microinjection of the GABA(A) receptor agonist muscimol (200 pmol/100 nL) decreased mean arterial blood pressure to similar levels across the groups (OP: 49 +/- 1 mm Hg; OR: 50 +/- 2 mm Hg; LF: 49 +/- 1 mm Hg), but the magnitude of this decrease was significantly greater in the OP versus the OR and LF rats (OP: -58 +/- 2 mm Hg; OR: -49 +/- 1 mm Hg; LF: -48 +/- 3 mm Hg; P < 0.01). These differences in mean arterial blood pressure cannot be explained by changes in vascular reactivity as the ED50 in response to phenylephrine and norepinephrine was similar across the groups. The present findings suggest that the elevated sympathetic nerve activity and arterial blood pressure in obese rats depends on the tonic activity of rostral ventrolateral medulla sympathetic neurons.

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