) is not only an oxidative product of nitric oxide (NO), but also serves as an indicator of endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity and as a circulating reservoir of NO bioactivity in the circulatory system. [1][2][3] The indicator status is supported by observations that approximately 70-90% of circulating plasma NO 2 Ϫ levels derive from NO produced by endothelial nitric oxide synthase. 4,5) The reservoir activity is widely accepted (see reviews [1][2][3] ) as is maintained when NO 2 Ϫ reacts with deoxygenated hemoglobin (Hb) in red blood cells (RBCs) to form NO and methemoglobin (metHb), leading to biological responses including vasodilation.2,6,7) Therefore, precise evaluation of NO 2 Ϫ plasma levels, including detailed kinetic knowledge, is required for further understanding of NO 2 Ϫ biology in the circulation. However, only limited kinetic data [8][9][10] are presently available, and many problems of NO 2 Ϫ biology await resolution.For example, it is still controversial whether arterio-venous (A-V) differences in plasma NO 2 Ϫ levels actually exist.
10-16)The A-V difference may reflect consumption of NO 2 Ϫ to form NO during peripheral circulation for preservation of blood flow at lower oxygen tension.12) Although we have previously reported a small but significant A-V difference under steadystate conditions, 10,14,17) these observations are complicated by a report that, in isolated blood, uptake of NO 2 Ϫ by RBCs is faster in venous blood than in arterial blood, 15) a scenario that may cause artificial apparent A-V differences when arterial and venous blood samples are treated after some delay. If this situation is indeed the case, our previous work reporting kinetic parameters 10) should also be re-evaluated. It is also unclear whether plasma NO 2 Ϫ levels reflect in vivo changes in NO 2 Ϫ levels. 10,12,18) Exogenously administered NO 2 Ϫ or NO resulted in a large A-V difference in plasma NO 2 Ϫ , with arterial blood preferentially reflecting the changes, 10,14,17) presumably due to greater contributions by RBCs or tissue as a buffering compartment under a state of lower oxygenation. A possible difference in the uptake rate of RBCs could not be large enough to explain such a large A-V difference, and contributions of tissue factors would be a great concern. 18,19) The emerging role of tissue as a reservoir of NO bioactivity via NO 2 Ϫ should be taken into consideration; some reports indicate that plasma NO 2 Ϫ levels may not accurately reflect increases in NO or NO 2 Ϫ levels in biological systems. 3,20,21) However, no alternative measures exist for assessing NO bioactivity in easily accessible biomaterials (such as blood). Therefore, the aim of this study was to estimate the steady-state concentration of plasma NO 2 Ϫ in order to evaluate whether the putative A-V difference actually exists. We also re-evaluated the pertinent kinetic features in vivo, considering uptake by RBC and tissue factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODSJapanese white rabbits weighing 2.4-3.5 kg were anesthetized with intravenous sodium...