1970
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(70)90707-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Renal-Clip Hypertension in Rabbits Immunised Against Angiotensin Ii

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

1970
1970
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The resistance of hypertension to immunization against angiotensin I1 has been adduced as powerful evidence against participation of circulating angiotensin in the underlying haemodynamic mechanisms (Eide & Aars, 1969;Louis, Macdonald, Renzini, Boyd & Peart, 1970). The present observations suggest a possible alternative role for angiotensin which is independent of circulatory levels.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 49%
“…The resistance of hypertension to immunization against angiotensin I1 has been adduced as powerful evidence against participation of circulating angiotensin in the underlying haemodynamic mechanisms (Eide & Aars, 1969;Louis, Macdonald, Renzini, Boyd & Peart, 1970). The present observations suggest a possible alternative role for angiotensin which is independent of circulatory levels.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 49%
“…Recent reports on the failure to affect experimentally induced renal hypertension in rab'bits by immunization against A-I1 (8,15) have raised the question whether A-I1 has any role in the development of renal hypertension. On the other hand many recent reports suggest several possible mechanisms whereby A-I1 and its congeners could affect the systemic blood pressure, e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It was shown that prior immunization against angiotensin II in the rabbit does not prevent the development of renal-clip hypertension, and that immunization of rabbits already hypertensive does not lower blood pressure. A preliminary account of this work has been reported previously (15).…”
mentioning
confidence: 95%