4.4 Article

Combined lack of estrogen receptors α and β affects vascular iNOS protein expression

期刊

CELL AND TISSUE RESEARCH
卷 313, 期 1, 页码 63-70

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00441-003-0731-3

关键词

aorta; nitric oxide synthase; noradrenaline; vascular morphology; estrogen receptor knockout; mouse (DERKO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells express both estrogen receptor (ER) alpha and beta. Recent findings indicate that vascular ERbeta and ERalpha may substitute for one another. Here, we investigate vascular morphology, contractility and protein expression in intact aorta from adult (4 months old) female mice lacking both ERalpha and ERbeta (DERKO). The body weights were 17% higher (P < 0.01) in DERKO than in wild-type mice. Vascular morphology, investigated in paraffin sections from aorta stained with hematoxylin-eosin or van Gieson, was identical in DERKO and wild-type mice. Endothelial cells were clearly visible in aorta of both DERKO and wild-type animals. Morphometric analysis of media thickness and wall to lumen ratio using a computerized image analyzing system demonstrated no differences between the two groups of mice. The vascular expression of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS, NOS III) and inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS, NOS II) was investigated using Western blotting. Aorta from both DERKO and wild-type mice expressed iNOS protein, but the iNOS expression was 3 times lower (P < 0.05) in DERKO compared to wild-type mice. No difference in eNOS protein level between the two groups of animals was observed. Force responses to noradrenaline, determined either in the absence or in the presence of the nitric oxide synthase inhibitor L-NAME and the cyclo-oxygenase inhibitor indomethacin, were unaffected by the lack of functional ERalpha/ERbeta. In summary, combined lack of functional ERalpha and ERbeta lowers the vascular expression of iNOS but has no effects on morphology, eNOS expression, and noradrenaline sensitivity in the intact aorta.

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