Why the study?
Does nitric oxide inhibition with L-NAME prevent exercise-induced arteriogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model of peripheral vascular disease?
Does nitric oxide inhibition with L-NAME prevent exercise-induced arteriogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model of peripheral vascular disease?
Nitric oxide is required for exercise-induced arteriogenesis (collateral blood flow) but not for angiogenesis (capillary growth) in a rat model of peripheral vascular disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Hypothesis-generating in rat peripheral vascular disease model; human studies needed before considering nitric oxide modulation for exercise vascular adaptations.
Nitric oxide (NO) has been implicated in both collateral expansion (arteriogenesis) and capillary growth (angiogenesis). Exercise training increases collateral-dependent blood flow to tissues at risk of ischemia and enhances capillarity in active skeletal muscle. Exercise also acutely elevates NO. Thus we assessed the role of NO in training-induced arteriogenesis and angiogenesis. These studies utilized a rat model of peripheral vascular disease (bilateral femoral artery ligation). Untreated rats (control) and rats treated with the NO synthase inhibitor N(omega)-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester (L-NAME; 65-70 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1), via drinking water) were divided into sedentary or exercise-trained subgroups. After approximately 3 wk, L-NAME treatment had elevated preexercise mean arterial pressure approximately 39-58%, confirming NO synthesis inhibition. The training program (treadmill exercise twice per day, 20-25 m/min, 15% grade, approximately 18 days) increased collateral-dependent blood flow to the distal hindlimb, with the greatest increase (approximately 59%) in the calf (P < 0.001). This increase was inhibited by L-NAME. In contrast, the training-induced increase in muscle capillarity was not blocked by L-NAME. Thus arteriogenesis and angiogenesis appear to differ in their requirement for NO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lloyd et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: