4.4 Article

Piglet pial arteries respond to N-methyl-D-aspartate in vivo but not in vitro

期刊

MICROVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 70, 期 1-2, 页码 76-83

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.mvr.2005.04.007

关键词

N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA); cerebral arteries; vasodilation

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-66074, HL-65380, HL-50587, HL-30260] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Controversy exists concerning whether activation of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors exerts direct dilator effects on cerebral arteries. The purpose of this study was to examine the responses of isolated piglet arteries to NNMA to determine whether isolated arteries, apart from surrounding neuronal tissue, are capable of responding to NMDA. Piglet arteries (100-200 mu m) were isolated from branches of the middle cerebral artery and carefully dissected free of adherent tissue. Arteries were then mounted in an arteriograph system and pressurized to either 30 mm Hg (n = 8), 60 mm Hg (n = 10), 80 mm Hg (n = 6), or 100 mm Hg (n = 5). After development of spontaneous tone, NMDA (10(-5) to 10(-3) M) was administered abluminally to the vessels, and no appreciable response was noted (for example; 10(-4) M, 30 mm Hg: 3 +/- 3% change in active diameter; 60 min Hg: -4 +/- 3% change in active diameter). Following a thorough washout, vessels were treated with bradykinin (10(-9) to 10(-7) M), and the arteries did respond (10-7 M, 30 mm Hg: 26 3% change in active diameter; 60 mm Hg: 65 +/- 10% change in active diameter). In contrast, 10(-5) M and 10(-4) M NMDA dilated arteries in vivo by 9 +/- 2% and 29 +/- 6% change in active diameter, respectively (n = 6). These results demonstrate that isolated cerebral arteries do not respond directly to NMDA receptor activation. This work confirms our previous in vivo data and is consistent with the hypothesis that cerebral arteries respond to NMDA through a secondary interaction mediated by neuronal release of NO and not to NMDA directly. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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