4.7 Article

Effects of interleukin-6 treatment on neurovascular function, nerve perfusion and vascular endothelium in diabetic rats

期刊

DIABETES OBESITY & METABOLISM
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 689-699

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2010.01221.x

关键词

diabetes; EDHF; interleukin-6; neuropathy; nitric oxide; vascular endothelium

资金

  1. Serono Plc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methods: After 1 month of diabetes, rats were given IL-6 for 1 month. The rats were subjected to sensory testing and measurements of nerve conduction velocities and nerve blood flow by hydrogen clearance microelectrode polarography. Further groups were used to study responses of the isolated gastric fundus and renal artery. Results were statistically analysed using ANOVA and post hoc tests. Results: Diabetic rats showed mechanical hyperalgesia, thermal hyperalgesia, and tactile allodynia. The former was unaffected by IL-6 treatment, whereas the latter two measures were corrected. Immunohistochemical staining of dorsal root ganglia for IL-6 did not reveal any changes with diabetes or treatment. The results showed that 22 and 17.4% slowing of sciatic motor and saphenous sensory nerve conduction velocities, respectively, with diabetes were improved by IL-6. Sciatic endoneurial perfusion was halved by diabetes and corrected by IL-6. A 40.6% diabetic deficit in maximal non-adrenergic, non-cholinergic relaxation of gastric fundus to nerve stimulation was unaffected by IL-6. Renal artery endothelium-dependent relaxation was halved by diabetes, the endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor (EDHF) component being severely attenuated. IL-6 did not affect nitric oxide-mediated vasorelaxation, but markedly improved EDHF responses. Conclusions: IL-6 improved aspects of small and large nerve fibre and vascular endothelium dysfunction in diabetic rats. The functional benefits related to increased nerve blood flow via an EDHF mechanism, and IL-6 could have therapeutic potential in diabetic neuropathy and vasculopathy, which should be further evaluated.

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