4.5 Article

Rate of NO scavenging alters effects of recombinant hemoglobin solutions on pulmonary vasoreactivity

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 1327-1336

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00175.2002

关键词

rHb1.1; rHb2.0 for injection; hypoxia; U-46619; nitric oxide; vascular permeability; isolated rat lung

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers (HBOCs) produce systemic and pulmonary hypertension and may increase microvascular permeability as a consequence of nitric oxide (NO) scavenging. In this study, we examined the effects of two recombinant human hemoglobin solutions, rHb1.1 and rHb2.0 for injection (rHb2.0), with different rates of NO scavenging on vasoconstrictor reactivity and vascular permeability in isolated, saline-perfused rat lungs. We hypothesized that rHb1.1, a first-generation HBOC with an NO scavenging rate similar to that of native human hemoglobin, would exacerbate pulmonary vasoconstriction and permeability and that rHb2.0, a second-generation HBOC with an NO scavenging rate similar to20- to 30-fold lower than that of rHb1.1, would minimally influence these responses. Consistent with this hypothesis, rHb1.1 enhanced pulmonary vasoconstrictor reactivity to both hypoxia and thromboxane mimetic U-46619 in a dose-dependent fashion. In contrast, rHb2.0 produced little or no change in reactivity to these stimuli. Furthermore, whereas rHb1.1 abrogated pulmonary vasodilation to the NO-donor S-nitroso-N-acetyl-penicillamine (SNAP), dose-dependent responses to SNAP were preserved, albeit attenuated, in lungs treated with rHb2.0. Finally, the capillary filtration coefficient was unaltered by either rHb1.1 or rHb2.0. We conclude that pulmonary hemodynamic responses to rHb2.0 are greatly reduced compared with those observed with rHb1.1, consistent with rHb2.0 having a diminished capacity to scavenge NO. In addition, neither hemoglobin solution measurably altered microvascular permeability in this preparation.

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