4.5 Article

Pre-synaptic NO-cGMP pathway modulates vagal control of heart rate in isolated adult guinea pig atria

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR CARDIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 10, 页码 1795-1804

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1006/jmcc.2000.1214

关键词

nitric oxide; autonomic nervous system; acetylcholine; heart rate; guinea pig

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of nitric oxide (NO) in the vagal modulation of heart rate (HR) is controversial. We tested the hypothesis that NO acts via a pre-synaptic, guanylyl cyclase (GC) dependent pathway. The effects of inhibiting NO synthase (NOS) and GC were evaluated in isolated atrial/right vagal nerve preparations From adult (550-750 g) and young (150-250 g) female guinea pigs. Levels of NOS protein were quantified in right atria using Western blotting and densitometry. The non-specific NOS inhibitor N-omega -nitro-L-arginine (L-NA, 100 muM, n = 5) significantly reduced the negative chronotropic response to vagal nerve stimulation (VNS) at 3 and 5 Hz in the adult guinea pig. This effect was reversed with 1 mM L-arginine. Similar results were observed with the specific neuronal NOS inhibitor vinyl-N5-(1-imino-3-butenyl)-L-ornithine (L-VNIO, 100 muM, n = 7). Inhibition of GC with 1H-(1,2,4)-oxadiazolo-(4,3-a)-quinoxalin-1-one (ODQ, 10 muM, n = 7) also significantly reduced the negative chronotropic response to VNS at 3 and 5 Hz in adult guinea pigs. Neither L-NA (n = 6), L-VNIO (n = 5) nor ODQ (n = 6) changed the HR response to cumulative doses of carbamylcholine in adult guinea pig atria suggesting that the action of NO is pre-synaptic. The IIR response to VNS was unaffected by L-NA (n = 7) or ODQ (n = 7) in young guinea pigs and Western blot analysis showed significantly lower levels of nNOS protein in right atria from young animals. These results suggest a pre-synaptic NO-cGMP pathway modulates cardiac cholinergic transmission, although this may depend on the developmental stage of the guinea pig. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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