ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology1999
Cardiovascular responses to angiotensins I and II in normotensive and hypertensive rats; effects of NO synthase inhibition or ET receptor antagonism.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Regional haemodynamic responses to the cannabinoid agonist, WIN 55212-2, in conscious, normotensive rats, and in hypertensive, transgenic rats.British journal of pharmacology · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. We compared the cardiovascular responses to angiotensins (I and II), and any possible modulatory influences thereupon of nitric oxide (NO) or endothelin (ET) in conscious male, normotensive, Hannover Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats, and hypertensive, heterozygous ((mRen-2)27), transgenic (TG) rats. 2. The pressor effects of angiotensin I or of angiotensin II were not consistently different in SD and TG rats. The accompanying absolute reductions in renal and mesenteric vascular conductances were smaller in TG rats, but probably due to the baseline vasoconstriction in those animals. 3. Inhibition of NO synthase with L-NAME had no significant effects on the pressor responses to angiotensin I or angiotensin II in either SD or TG rats. L-NAME reduced the absolute, but not percentage, reductions in renal and mesenteric vascular conductances in response to angiotensin I and angiotensin II. L-NAME abolished the hindquarters vasodilator effects of angiotensin I and angiotensin II in both strains of rat. 4. ET receptor antagonism (with SB209670) had no significant influence on the pressor or renal or mesenteric vasoconstrictor effects of angiotensin II in SD rats. In TG rats, the pressor responses to angiotensin II were unaffected by SB209670; the accompanying falls in renal and mesenteric vascular conductances were enhanced in absolute, but not in percentage terms. 5. These results provide no evidence for a buffering action of NO, or a modulatory influence of ET, on the pressor or vasoconstrictor effects of angiotensin I and/or angiotensin II in SD rats. Furthermore, there is no evidence for an altered sensitivity to angiotensin I or angiotensin II, and no evidence for a differential modulatory influence of either NO or ET in TG, compared to SD, rats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.