4.6 Article

Role of brain and peripheral angiotensin II in hypertension and altered arterial baroreflex programmed during fetal life in rat

期刊

PEDIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 55, 期 6, 页码 1042-1049

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1203/01.PDR.0000127012.37315.36

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intrauterine programming of hypertension is associated with evidence of increased renin-angiotensin system (RAS) activity. The current study was undertaken to investigate whether arterial baroreflex and blood pressure variability are altered in a model of in utero programming of hypertension secondary to isocaloric protein deprivation and whether activation of the RAS plays a role in this alteration. Pregnant Wistar rats were fed a normal-protein (18%) or low-protein (9%) diet during gestation, which had no effect on litter size, birth weight, or pup survival. Mean arterial blood pressure (MABP; 126 +/- 3 mm Hg 9% versus 108 +/- 4 rum Hg 18%; p < 0.05) and blood pressure variability were significantly greater in the adult offspring of the 9% protein-fed mothers. Arterial baroreflex control of heart rate, generated by graded i.v. infusion of phenylephrine and nitroprusside, was significantly shifted toward higher pressure; i.v. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor normalized MABP and shifted the arterial baroreflex curve of the 9% offspring toward lower pressure without affecting the 18% offspring. For examining whether brain RAS is also involved in programming of hypertension, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and losartan (specific AT(1) receptor antagonist) were administered intracerebroventricularly; both significantly reduced MABP of the 9% but not the 18% offspring. Autoradiographic receptor binding studies demonstrated an increase in brain AT(1) expression in the subfornical organ and the vascular organ of the lamina terminalis in the 9% offspring. These data demonstrate a major tonic role of brain and peripheral RAS on hypertension associated with antenatal nutrient deprivation.

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