4.5 Article

Effect of two paradigms of chronic intermittent hypoxia on carotid body sensory activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 96, 期 3, 页码 1236-1242

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00820.2003

关键词

hypoxic sensitivity; superoxide anions; oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reflexes arising from the carotid bodies may play an important role in cardiorespiratory changes evoked by chronic intermittent hypoxia (CIH). In the present study, we examined whether CIH affects the hypoxic sensing ability of the carotid bodies and, if so, by what mechanisms. Experiments were performed on adult male rats (Sprague-Dawley, 250-300 g) exposed to two paradigms of CIH for 10 days: 1) multiple exposures to short durations of intermittent hypoxia per day (SDIH; 15 s of 5% O-2 + 5 min of 21% O-2, 9 episodes/h, 8 h/day) and 2) single exposure to longer durations of intermittent hypoxia per day [LDIH; 4 h of hypobaric hypoxia (0.4 atm/day) + 20 h of normoxia]. Carotid body sensory response to graded isocapnic hypoxia was examined in both groups of animals under anesthetized conditions. Hypoxic sensory response was significantly enhanced in SDIH but not in LDIH animals. Similar enhancement in hypoxic sensory response was also elicited in ex vivo carotid bodies from SDIH animals, suggesting that the effects were not secondary to cardiovascular changes. SDIH, however, had no significant effect on the hypercapnic sensory response. The effects of SDIH on the hypoxic sensory response completely reversed after SDIH animals were placed in a normoxic environment for an additional 10 days. Previous treatment with systemic administration of O-2(-.) radical scavenger prevented SDIH-induced augmentation of the hypoxic sensory response. These results demonstrate that SDIH but not LDIH results in selective augmentation of the hypoxic response of the carotid body and O-2(-.) radicals play an important role in SDIH-induced sensitization of the carotid body.

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

4.5
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