4.7 Article

Endothelial dysfunction and blood pressure variability in selected inbred mouse strains

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/hq0102.101098

关键词

aorta; blood pressure; endothelium; inbred mice

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-10425, HL-56006, HL-38901, HL-48058, HL-10237, HL-62984, HL-61446] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [NS-24621] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [P01HL062984, R29HL038901, R01HL048058, R01HL038901, F32HL010425, R37HL048058, R01HL061446] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [P01NS024621] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genetic regulation of blood pressure (BP) and endothelial function is likely to be polygenic. Because there is considerable variability in basal BP among inbred mouse strains, the purpose of this study was to determine whether a similar variability in vascular function exists among 7 normotensive strains. We tested the hypothesis that compared with mice with higher BPs, mice with lower BPs would have greater aortic endothelial responses to acetylcholine (ACh). Mean BP ranged from 117 to 145 mm Hg among the 7 strains. The responses of aortic rings to ACh, sodium nitroprusside, and papaverine were assessed after submaximal precontraction with prostaglandin F-2a. The aortas from all strains relaxed in a concentration-dependent manner to sodium nitroprusside and papaverine, but responses to ACh were markedly impaired in the aortas, but not carotid arteries, from 129P3/J and 129X1/SvJ mice. Aortas from the other strains relaxed normally to ACh. Furthermore, the endothelium-dependent dilators ADP and A23187 caused similar relaxation in 129P3/J, 129X1/SvJ, and C57BL/6J mice. Although the data do not support the initial hypothesis, the impaired aortic response to ACh in the 129 strains is a novel finding and illustrates the potential impact that genetic background can have on vascular responsiveness.

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

4.7
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