4.5 Article

Effects of cilnidipine on muscle fiber composition, capillary density and muscle blood flow in fructose-fed rats

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 565-572

出版社

JAPANESE SOC HYPERTENSION CENT ACADEMIC SOC, PUBL OFFICE
DOI: 10.1291/hypres.24.565

关键词

insulin resistance; muscle fiber composition; capillary density; muscle blood flow; calcium channel blocker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to examine the roles of muscle fiber composition, capillary density and muscle blood flow in insulin resistance (IR) and the effect of cilnidipine, a calcium channel blocker in fructose-fed rats (FFR). Six-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were fed either normal rat chow or fructose-rich chow for 6 weeks. For the last 2 weeks, the rats were treated by gavage with a vehicle (Control and FFR groups) or with cilnidipine (FFR + Cil group). Blood pressure (BP) and insulin sensitivity were assessed in the sixth week. Muscle fiber composition, capillary density and blood flow in the soleus muscle were evaluated. BP of FFR was significantly higher than that of the controls. Cilnidipine significantly lowered BP in FFR. Insulin sensitivity was significantly lower in FFR than in the controls. Cilnidipine significantly improved IR in FFR. The composite ratio of type I fibers in the soleus muscle was significantly lower in FFR than in the controls, but that of type II fibers was significantly higher in FFR. Treatment with cilnidipine resulted in recovery of this ratio to that of the controls. Insulin sensitivity was found to be significantly correlated with the composite ratio of either type I fibers or type II fibers. There were no intergroup differences in capillary density. Muscle blood flow in the FFR + Cil group was higher than that in the Control or FFR groups. These results suggest that muscle fiber composition is linked to IR and that cilnidipine may improve IR in FFR either by modulating muscle fiber composition or by increasing muscle blood flow.

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