MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uterine perivascular adipose tissue: A novel regulator of uterine artery hemodynamics during normal pregnancy

2019· article· en· W2942782426 on OpenAlexaff
Oluwatobiloba Osikoya, Hijab Ahmed, Sareh Panahi, Stephane L. Bourque, Styliani Goulopoulou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocrinologyAdipose tissueInternal medicineUterine arteryElectrical impedance myographyVasodilationSodium nitroprussideHemodynamicsBlood flowUterusMedicineChemistryPregnancyBiologyGestationNitric oxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction During pregnancy, uterine artery (UtA) blood flow increases compared to non‐pregnant state, in part due to reductions in uterine artery tone. The main objective of this study was to determine the role of adipose tissue surrounding UtA (perivascular adipose tissue, PVAT) in pregnancy‐induced changes in UtA blood flow and vasodilatory capacity. We hypothesized that uterine PVAT augments UtA blood flow and potentiates UtA dilatory responses in pregnant rats. Also, we hypothesized that pregnancy induces distinct changes in uterine PVAT morphology and gene expression as compared to other adipose depots. Methods Blood flow and vascular reactivity were measured in UtA in pregnant and non‐pregnant rats using transonic perivascular probes and wire myography techniques, respectively. Reactivity to acetylcholine (ACh: induces endothelium‐dependent relaxation, 10 −9 – 3×10 −5 M) and sodium nitroprusside (SNP: induces endothelium‐independent relaxation, 10 −11 – 3×10 −5 M) was measured in isolated UtA in the presence and absence of PVAT‐conditioned media (PVAT media , 30‐min incubation). Adipocyte size was determined in hematoxylin and eosin‐stained sections of uterine PVAT and ovarian adipose tissue. Gene expression was determined in uterine and periaortic PVAT using qRT‐PCR. Results Maximum and minimum uterine artery blood flow (UBF) were increased in UtA with intact PVAT compared to PVAT‐denuded UtA from pregnant rats (UBF max (mL/min); denuded: 1.47 ± 0.3 vs. intact: 2.23 ± 0.2, p = 0.01; UBF min (mL/min); denuded: 0.71 ± 0.1 vs. intact: 1.16 ± 0.1, p = 0.0002). Uterine PVAT had no effect on UBF in non‐pregnant rats (p>0.9). UtA from pregnant and non‐pregnant rats incubated with PVAT media had reduced sensitivity to ACh compared to UtA controls [Pregnant, p EC 50 ; −PVAT media : 7.14 ± 0.1 vs. +PVAT media : 6.38 ± 0.2, p = 0.0006; Non‐pregnant, p EC 50 ; −PVAT media : 7.01 ± 0.1 vs. +PVAT media : 6.50 ± 0.1, p = 0.005). PVAT media had no effect on UtA sensitivity to SNP in either pregnant (p=0.48) or non‐pregnant rats (p = 0.2). Adipocyte area was greater in ovarian adipose tissue from pregnant compared to nonpregnant rats (Area (μm 2 /unit cell); Non‐pregnant: 563.6 ± 76.6 vs. Pregnant: 857.6 ± 31.0, p = 0.02) but there were no group differences in uterine PVAT morphology (p = 0.6). Expression of uncoupling protein‐1 (UCP‐1) was downregulated (p = 0.02) in aortic PVAT but was unchanged in uterine PVAT (p = 0.4). Expression of peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor gamma ( PPAR‐γ) , adiponectin receptor (AdipoR1) , and leptin were downregulated in uterine PVAT (p ≤ 0.02) but not in aortic PVAT (p ≥ 0.6). Conclusions Uterine PVAT plays a regulatory role in uterine artery hemodynamics and reactivity during normal pregnancy and has a distinct and differential gene profile as compared to other perivascular depots. Ongoing studies investigate the effects of pregnancy on cross‐talk between PVAT and maternal uterine arteries. Support or Funding Information University of North Texas Health Science Center Pilot Grant This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207