Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates that intermittent hypoxia increases vasoconstriction to substance P in mouse pulmonary arteries, indicating potential implications for pulmonary hypertension.
Rationale Intermittent hypoxia concomitant with sleep apnea leads to pulmonary hypertension. Neuronal function can be altered by IH, however, the effects of IH on sensory nerve-mediated vasoreactivity are poorly defined. The sensory neurotransmitter substance P can evoke both vasodilation and vasoconstriction in pulmonary arteries, and we hypothesized that IH would enhance vasoconstriction to substance P. Methods We evaluated vasoreactivity to substance P (10-9-10-5 M) in isolated, pressurized (16 cmH2O) pulmonary arteries (100-150 µm diameter) preconstricted with uridine triphosphate (UTP, 5 µM; EC50) from male C57BL/6J mice exposed to cycles of IH (90s 6% O2 / 90s room air) or room aim for 12 hr/day for 8 weeks (sham). Changes in smooth muscle cell Vm were evaluated with sharp electrodes. Results In vessels from sham mice, low doses of substance P elicited vasodilation. However, at 10-6 M, substance P transitioned to a vasoconstrictor effect. In pulmonary arteries from IH mice, vasodilation was nearly abolished,and substance P began to elicit vasoconstriction at 10-7.5 M. Consistently, IH reduced hyperpolarization to substance P at low concentrations and enhanced depolarization at higher concentrations. Endothelial disruption eliminated vasodilation to substance P for both sham and IH vessels, however, vasoconstriction remained enhanced in IH vs. sham arteries. Remarkably, inhibition of eNOS with LNAME (10-4 M) unmasks an endothelial component to substance P-mediated vasoconstriction which was similar in magnitude in both sham and IH vessels (∼15%). Conclusion IH associated with sleep apnea potentiates pulmonary arterial vasoconstriction to substance P by impairing endothelium-dependent vasodilation and enhancing smooth muscle-dependent vasoconstriction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Norton et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: