4.5 Article

HIF1α and physiological responses to hypoxia are correlated in mice but not in rats

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 219, 期 24, 页码 3952-3961

出版社

COMPANY OF BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.142869

关键词

Respiratory control; Metabolic rate; Hypoxia; Protein expression; Brain

类别

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [RGPGP-2014-00083]
  2. Reseau en Sante Respiratoire (Fonds de Recherche du Quebec - Sante)
  3. Reseau en Sante Respiratoire (Canadian Institutes of Health Research)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We previously reported that rats and mice that have been raised for more than 30 generations in La Paz, Bolivia (3600 m), display divergent physiological responses to high altitude, including improved respiratory and metabolic control in mice. In the present study, we asked whether these traits would also be present in response to hypoxia at sea level. To answer this question, we exposed rats (Sprague Dawley) and mice (FVB) to normoxia (21% O-2) or hypoxia (15 and 12% O-2) for 6 h and measured ventilation and metabolic rate (whole-body plethysmography), and expression of the transcription factor HIF-1 alpha (ELISA and mass spectrometry) and other proteins whose expression are regulated by hypoxia (glucose transporter 1, pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 1 and angiopoietin 2; mass spectrometry) in the brainstem. In response to hypoxia, compared with rats, mice had higher minute ventilation, lower metabolic rate and higher expression of HIF-1 alpha in the brainstem. In mice, the expression level of HIF-1 alpha was positively correlated with ventilation and negatively correlated with metabolic rate. In rats, the concentration of brainstem cytosolic protein decreased by 38% at 12% O-2, while expression of the glucose transporter 1 increased. We conclude that mice and rats raised at sea level have divergent physiological and molecular responses to hypoxia, supporting the hypothesis that mice have innate traits that favor adaptation to altitude.

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

4.5
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