4.6 Article

L-Arginine fails to protect against myocardial remodelling in L-NAME-induced hypertension

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 362-368

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2005.01507.x

关键词

CoQ; fibrosis; hypertension; hypertrophy; L-arginine; L-NAME

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We investigated whether the substrate for nitric oxide synthesis L-arginine is able to modify hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy development induced by chronic blockade of nitric oxide synthase activity by N-G-nitro-L-arginine-methyl ester (L-NAME). Material and methods Four groups of rats were investigated: control, L-arginine 1.5 g kg(-1), L-NAME 40 mg kg(-1), and L-NAME + L-arginine in corresponding doses. Systolic blood pressure was measured by non-invasive tail-cuff plethysmography each week. After 4 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and hydroxyproline and coenzyme Q(9) and Q(10) concentrations in the left ventricle, and nitric oxide synthase activity in the left ventricle, kidney and brain were investigated. Results In the L-NAME group, nitric oxide synthase activity was decreased in the left ventricle, kidney and brain, and hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy and fibrosis developed. Heart remodelling was associated with the decrease of coenzyme Q(9) and Q(10) concentrations in the left ventricle. Simultaneous treatment with L-NAME and L-arginine prevented nitric oxide synthase activity diminution in the left ventricle but not in the kidney and brain, and completely failed to prevent hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy and fibrosis. Nevertheless, L-arginine prevented the diminution of coenzyme Q(9) and Q(10) concentrations in the left ventricle. Conclusions We conclude that L-arginine failed to prevent hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy and fibrosis development despite restoration of nitric oxide synthase activity in the left ventricle. However, L-arginine prevented the diminution of coenzyme Q levels in the left ventricle.

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