4.7 Article

Regulation of vascular nitric oxide in vitro and in vivo; a new role for endogenous hydrogen sulphide?

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 149, 期 6, 页码 625-634

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706906

关键词

hydrogen sulphide; sodium hydrosulphide; nitric oxide; nitrosothiol; phenylephrine; acetylcholine; histamine; glibenclamide; rat aorta vascular reactivity; rat mean arterial blood pressure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: The aim of these experiments was to evaluate the significance of the chemical reaction between hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and nitric oxide (NO) for the control of vascular tone. Experimental Approach: The effect of sodium hydrosulphide (NaHS; H2S donor) and a range of NO donors, such as sodium nitroprusside (SNP), either alone or together, was determined using phenylephrine (PE)-precontracted rat aortic rings and on the blood pressure of anaesthetised rats. Key Results: Mixing NaHS with NO donors inhibited the vasorelaxant effect of NO both in vitro and in vivo. Low concentrations of NaHS or H2S gas in solution reversed the relaxant effect of acetylcholine (ACh, 400 nM) and histamine (100 mu M) but not isoprenaline (400 nM). The effect of NaHS on the ACh response was antagonized by CuSO4 (200 nM) but was unaffected by glibenclamide (10 mu M). In contrast, high concentrations of NaHS (200-1600 mu M) relaxed aortic rings directly, an effect reduced by glibenclamide but unaffected by CuSO4. Intravenous infusion of a low concentration of NaHS (10 mu mol kg(-1) min(-1)) into the anaesthetized rat significantly increased mean arterial blood pressure. L-NAME (25 mg kg(-1), i.v.) pretreatment reduced this effect. Conclusions and Implications: These results suggest that H2S and NO react together to form a molecule (possibly a nitrosothiol) which exhibits little or no vasorelaxant activity either in vitro or in vivo. We propose that a crucial, and hitherto unappreciated, role of H2S in the vascular system is the regulation of the availability of NO.

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