3.8 Article

Chronic Emotional Stress Exposure Increases Infarct Size in Rats: The Role of Oxidative and Nitrosative Damage in Response to Sympathetic Hyperactivity

出版社

PROUS SCIENCE, SAU-THOMSON REUTERS
DOI: 10.1358/mf.2008.30.10.1316822

关键词

Emotional stress; Myocardial infarction; Oxidative damage; Nitrosative damage; Sympathetic hyperactivity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the level of sympathetic hyperactivity in response to stress exposure in an acute in myocardial infarction (AMI) model and the contribution of oxidative and nitrosative damage to this phenomenon. Stress was induced by 20-day administration of different emotional stress factors: daylight/darkness exposure, overcrowding, isolation, new hierarchy, tilting the cage and restriction of water or food. AMI was induced surgically, Heart I-ate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) measurements were done before and after AMI. Oxidant parameters were measured in heart tissue and cortisol levels were measured in plasma specimens. Compared with the nonstressed group, stress-exposed rats showed sympathetic hyperactivity characterised by increased HR together with decreased HRV. In the stressed group serum corticosterone levels were high both below and after A All. Mean infarct size in the stressed group was significantly larger (44.6 +/- 3.23% and 53.1 +/- 4.52%, respectively; P < 0.05). Increasecl tissue malondialdehyde (MDA) levels (0.63 +/- 0.59 and 1.60 +/- 0.31 nmol/mg protein, respectively: P < 0.05) and decreased superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and glutathione (GSH) content were seen in stress-exposed rots. Likewise, heart peroxynitrite levels were also high in stress-exposed rats (141.8 +/- 18 nmol/g tissue vs. 164.2 +/- 21 nmol/g tissue). Chronic emotional stress is a deteriorating factor for the induction and prognosis of MI. Exaggerated sympathetic activity may be the major contributing factor. Oxidative and nitrosative damage in response to this sympathetic hyperactivity is the kelp mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据