4.6 Article

Differential sympathetic outflow and vasoconstriction responses at kidney and skeletal muscles during fictive locomotion

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.00640.2005

关键词

central command; mesencephalic locomotor region; sympathetic nervous system; renal blood flow; muscle blood flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Differential sympathetic outflow and vasoconstriction responses at kidney and skeletal muscles during fictive locomotion. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 290: H861-H868, 2006. First published September 2, 2005; doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00640.2005.-We compared sympathetic and circulatory responses between kidney and skeletal muscles during fictive locomotion evoked by electrical stimulation of the mesencephalic locomotor region (MLR) in decerebrate and paralyzed rats (n = 8). Stimulation of the MLR for 30 s at 40-mu A current intensity significantly increased arterial pressure (+38 +/- 6 mmHg), triceps surae muscle blood flow (+17 +/- 3%), and both renal and lumbar sympathetic nerve activities (RSNA +113 +/- 16%, LSNA +31 +/- 7%). The stimulation also significantly decreased renal cortical blood flow (-18 +/- 6%) and both renal cortical and triceps surae muscle vascular conductances (RCVC +38 +/- 5%, TSMVC -17 +/- 3%). The sympathetic and vascular conductance changes were significantly dependent on current intensity for stimulation at 20, 30, and 40 mu A. The changes in LSNA and TSMVC were significantly less than those in RSNA and RCVC, respectively, at all current intensities. At the early stage of stimulation (0-10 s), decreases in RCVC and TSMVC were significantly correlated with increases in RSNA and LSNA, respectively. These data demonstrate that fictive locomotion induces less vasoconstriction in skeletal muscles than in kidney because of less sympathetic activation. This suggests that a neural mechanism mediated by central command contributes to blood flow distribution by evoking differential sympathetic outflow during exercise.

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