4.4 Article

The role of α1- and α2-adrenoceptors in gender differences in cutaneous LD flux response to local cooling

期刊

MICROVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 126-131

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.mvr.2001.12.001

关键词

microcirculation; skin; laser-Doppler flowmetry; cold; alpha-adrenergic receptors; gender

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was designed to assess the hypothesis that alpha(2)-adrenergic response plays a predominant role in sex differences in cutaneous microvascular response to cold. For this purpose, we studied the effect of the selective alpha(1)-antagonist prazosin (1 mul of 1.2 mM solution) and the alpha(2)-antagonist yohimbine (1 mul of 12 mM solution) microinjected into the skin area where the laser-Doppler (LD) flux response to local cooling was measured in healthy male and female subjects. Multiple regression analysis showed correlation between LD flux response at the site of local cooling (direct response) and gender (P = 0.039). The LD flux decrease was smaller in males. The application of the yohimbine significantly diminished the LD flux response at the site of local cooling in females but not in males (P < 0.05). In contrast, the injection of prazosin did not significantly affect the response. These findings strongly support the suggestion of a decisive role of alpha(2)-adrenoceptors in cold-induced gender difference at the level of cutaneous microvasculature at the site of local cooling. Multiple regression analysis of LD flux response to cold exposure at the site distant to cooling (indirect response) also confirmed correlation between LD flux response and gender (P = 0.022). The LD flux decrease was smaller in males. The alpha(1)-antagonist abolished the LD flux response to cold exposure (P = 0.000). These results corroborate the importance of alpha(1)-adrenoceptors in skin microcirculatory response to indirect local cooling mediated by the sympathetic vascular reflex. (C) 2004 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