4.6 Article

Effects of chronic portal hypertension on agonist-induced actin polymerization in small mesenteric arteries

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00643.2005

关键词

vascular smooth muscle; protein kinase A; myosin; phenylephrine; isometric tension

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-51430] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ability of arterial smooth muscle to respond to vasoconstrictor stimuli is reduced in chronic portal hypertension (PHT). Additional evidence supports the existence of a postreceptor defect in vascular smooth muscle excitation contraction coupling. However, the nature of this defect is unclear. Recent studies have shown that vasoconstrictor stimuli induce actin polymerization in smooth muscle and that the associated increase in F-actin is necessary for force development. In the present study we have tested the hypothesis that impaired actin polymerization contributes to reduced vasoconstrictor function in small mesenteric arteries derived from rats with chronic prehepatic PHT. In vitro studies were conducted on small mesenteric artery vessel rings isolated from normal and PHT rats. Isometric tension responses to incremental concentrations of phenylephrine were significantly reduced in PHT arteries. The ability to polymerize actin in portal hypertensive mesenteric arteries stimulated by phenylephrine was attenuated compared with control. Inhibition of cAMP- dependent protein kinase (PKA) restored agonist-induced actin polymerization of arteries from PHT rats to normal levels. Depolymerization of actin in arteries from normal rats reduced maximal contractile force but not myosin phosphorylation, suggesting a key role for the dynamic regulation of actin polymerization in the maintenance of vascular smooth muscle contraction. We conclude that reductions in agonist-induced maximal force development of PHT vascular smooth muscle is due, in part, to impaired actin polymerization, and prolonged PKA activation may underlie these changes.

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