4.6 Article

Antihypertensive and endothelium-dependent vasodilator effects of aqueous extract of Cistus ladaniferus

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2009.08.113

关键词

Cistus ladaniferus; L-NAME; 2K-1C renovascular hypertension; Thoracic aorta; Heart; Rat

资金

  1. Projet conjoint CNR-INSERM 2005
  2. HWO TSA 03/7

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cistus ladaniferus L. (Cistaceae) is a medicinal plant originated from the Mediterranean region which exerts different pharmacological effects. In the present study, our goal was to examine whether the plant possessed antihypertensive properties. Aqueous extract of Cistus leaves (AEC, 500 mg/kg/day) reduced systemic blood pressure (SBP) in two animal models of hypertension, the L-NAME and renovascular two kidney-one clip (2K-1C) hypertensive rats. In the former, AEC prevented the increase in SBP when co-administered with L-NAME during four weeks (164 +/- 3 mm Hg in L-NAME vs. 146 +/- 1 mm Hg in L-NAME + AEC, p < 0.001). In the latter, AEC reversed the increase in SBP when administered during four weeks after installation of the hypertension (146 +/- 5 mm Hg with AEC vs. 179 +/- 6 mm Hg without, p < 0.05). AEC treatment also reversed the endothelial dysfunction observed in both animal models of hypertension. A direct effect on cardiac and vascular tissue was also tested by examining the contractile effects of AEC in rat isolated aortic rings and Langendorff perfused hearts. AEC (10 mg/L) had no effect on left ventricular developed pressure and heart rate in isolated perfused heart. However, AEC produced a strong relaxation of pre-contracted rat aortic rings (80 +/- 2% relaxation, n = 25). When the rings were denuded from endothelium or were incubated with 1 mM N omega-nitro-L-arginine (L-NNA), the relaxant effect of AEC was lost. We conclude that C. ladaniferus possesses antihypertensive properties which are mainly due to an endothelium-dependent vasodilatory action. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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