4.4 Article

Prenatal programming of angiotensin II type 2 receptor expression in the rat

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 133-140

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1079/BJN20031029

关键词

angiotensin II receptors; fetal programming; low-protein diet

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation [PG/02/047/13752] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Exposure to undernutrition during fetal life has been proposed as an underlying cause of adult hypertension. Epidemiological studies demonstrating relationships between low birth weight and later CVD are supported by animal experiments indicating that manipulations of the maternal diet in pregnancy exert programming effects upon blood pressure control. Pregnant female Wistar rats were fed a control diet (n 13) or a low-protein diet (n 12) throughout pregnancy. At delivery all animals were fed the same standard laboratory chow diet. Analysis of nephron number in kidneys obtained from 4-week-old offspring showed that this was significantly (P< 0.05) reduced in animals exposed to maternal protein restriction. At this age rats exposed to low-protein diets in utero had systolic blood pressures that were significantly greater than those of control animals (+ 23 mmHg, P< 0.05). Administration of ascending doses of angiotensin Il (1-40 ng/kg body weight intravenously) to 10-week-old anaesthetised female rats showed that the pressor response to the peptide was greater and more prolonged in animals exposed to low-protein diets in utero. Renal expression of mRNA for the angiotensin II type 1 receptor was similar in the two groups of rats, but low-protein-exposed animals had significantly lower renal expression of the type 2 receptor (P=0.023). These results suggest that maternal nutritional status programmes expression of the renal angiotensin H type 2 receptor. This may play a key role in the impairment of renal development and the elevation of blood pressure noted in rats exposed to intra-uterine protein restriction.

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