4.6 Article

Constant Light Exerted Detrimental Cardiovascular Effects Through Sympathetic Hyperactivity in Normal and Heart Failure Rats

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROSCIENCE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2020.00248

关键词

constant light exposure; cardiac function; heart failure; rostral ventrolateral medulla; sympathetic activity

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81800366, 81630012, 31500933, 81770419]
  2. Key Laboratory of Medical Electrophysiology (Southwest Medical University), Ministry of Education of China [201603, 201709]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been documented that constant light exposure exerts complicated cardiovascular effects. However, a mounting collection of conflicting results did not make it any easier for researchers and physicians to consider the role of light on cardiovascular function. This study was designed to investigate how constant light exposure (24 h light/day) influences the cardiac function in normal and heart-failure (HF) rats. In normal rats, two groups of SD rats were accustomed in 12 h light/12 h dark (LD) or 24 h light (constant light, CL) for 4 weeks. In HF rats which was induced by myocardial infarction (MI) was let recover in LD for 4 weeks. Interestingly, compared with rats in LD environment (ejection fraction, EF%: 93.64 +/- 2.02 in LD, 14.62 +/- 1.53 in HF-LD), constant light (2 weeks) weakened the cardiac function in normal and HF rats (EF%: 79.42 +/- 2.91 in CL, 11.50 +/- 1.08 in HF-CL). The levels of renal sympathetic nerve activity and c-fos expression in the rostral ventrolateral medulla (RVLM), a key region controlling sympathetic outflow, were significantly increased in normal and HF rats after constant light (RSNA, Max%: 8.64 +/- 0.48 in LD, 20.02 +/- 1.24 in CL, 20.10 +/- 1.16 in HF-LD, 26.82 +/- 1.69 in HF-CL). In conclusion, it is suggested that constant light exposure exerts detrimental cardiovascular effects, which may be associated with the RVLM-related sympathetic hyperactivity.

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

4.6
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