4.4 Article

Altered vascular reactivity in mice made hypertensive by nitric oxide synthase inhibition

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR PHARMACOLOGY
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 438-444

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.fjc.0000175879.14994.63

关键词

hypertension; mice; nitric oxide; nitric oxide synthase; vascular reactivity

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-71138, HL-74167] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study tested the hypothesis that nitric oxide (NO) synthase inhibition in mice would result in hypertension characterized by increased agonist-induced vasoconstrictor responsiveness and attenuated endothelium-dependent vasodilation. Administration of N-omega-nitro-L-arginine (L-NNA), an NO synthase inhibitor (1 g/L, 4 weeks), via drinking water to mice resulted in significant elevations in blood pressure. Phenylephrine-induced contraction was significantly increased in aortic rings from L-NNA-treated mice compared with rings from control mice. Aortic rings from control mice showed a concentration-dependent relaxation to acetylcholine whereas those obtained from L-NNA-treated mice showed a biphasic response, contracting at lower concentrations while relaxing at higher concentrations. Aortic rings from L-NNA-treated mice had decreased relaxation to acetylcholine and increased sensitivity to sodium nitroprusside compared with control rings. The relaxation induced by an NO-independent soluble guanylyl cyclase activator was not different between groups. In aortic rings from control and L-NNA-treated mice pre-contracted with phenylephrine, the administration Of L-NNA to the organ bath caused additional and sustained contraction. When compared with the contraction induced by phenylephrine, L-NNA-induced contraction in aorta from control mice was significantly higher than that in aorta from L-NNA-treated mice. We conclude that mice treated with L-NNA develop hypertension and that a reduction in NO availability is responsible for the changes observed in vascular reactivity.

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

4.4
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