2000
DOI: 10.1006/jmcc.2000.1117
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

No Involvement of Endogenous Nitric Oxide In Classical Ischemic Preconditioning in Swine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
2
3

Year Published

2000
2000
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
29
2
3
Order By: Relevance
“…AG had no effect on CBF, anterior wall thickening and LVPP in shamoperated animals. This contrasts well with the effects of L-NNA, a NOS inhibitor also directed against eNOS 29 , in the same animal model in an earlier study 30 , which showed pronounced effects on endothelial and regional myocardial function (Online Figure I A). In line with an iNOS-mediated dysfunction, we demonstrated increased iNOS activity during sustained ischemia, and found that tissue nitrite concentrations as a surrogate of NO production correlated inversely with in vivo regional function ( Fig.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 86%
“…AG had no effect on CBF, anterior wall thickening and LVPP in shamoperated animals. This contrasts well with the effects of L-NNA, a NOS inhibitor also directed against eNOS 29 , in the same animal model in an earlier study 30 , which showed pronounced effects on endothelial and regional myocardial function (Online Figure I A). In line with an iNOS-mediated dysfunction, we demonstrated increased iNOS activity during sustained ischemia, and found that tissue nitrite concentrations as a surrogate of NO production correlated inversely with in vivo regional function ( Fig.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 86%
“…The role of NO in early preconditioning is controversial. In some studies, NOS inhibitors failed to abolish preconditioning-induced protection in rats (24,46), rabbits (27,47), and pigs (33). In the rat heart, Weselcouch et al (46) found that protection was not blocked by L-NAME at 30 M, yet Lochner et al (19) were able to block protection with 50 M. Nakano et al (27) found that NO donors induced preconditioning in the rabbit heart but were unable to abolish protection with L-NAME at 100 M. We found that L-NAME inhibited protection at 200 M, but preliminary studies failed to show any effect at 50 or 100 M. Thus dose-dependent effects of NOS inhibitors may explain, at least in part, the negative results observed in some previous reports.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…*P Ͻ 0.05 vs. group 1. (15,16). The mechanism of cardioprotection by TNF-␣ is not fully understood but might be related to mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channel activation (10).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%