The Effects of Local NOS‐inhibition and Ascorbate Administration on Cutaneous Vasodilation and Sweating During Exercise‐heat Stress in Adults With and Without Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aging is associated with oxidative stress in the skin resulting from an accumulation of radical oxygen species. Hypertension exacerbates oxidative stress, leading to a reduced contribution of nitric oxide (NO) to cutaneous vasodilation during whole‐body passive heat stress. We recently demonstrated that local administration of the non‐selective anti‐oxidant ascorbate did not modify NO‐dependent cutaneous vasodilation and sweating in older adults exercising in the heat (35°C). The effect of ascorbate on those responses in individuals with hypertension, however, remains uncertain. We therefore evaluated the hypothesis that local ascorbate administration improves NO‐dependent cutaneous vasodilation and sweating in adults with hypertension. Middle‐aged adults with (HYPE, mean [SD] age: 60 [5] years; n=7, 5 women) and without (CON, age: 63 [6] years; n=7, 2 women) hypertension performed two 30‐min bouts of cycling in the heat (35°C, 20% RH) at an external work rate eliciting ~50% peak aerobic power. The first (Ex1) and second (Ex2) bouts were separated by a 20‐min recovery. Four skin sites were perfused continuously via microdialysis with either 1) lactated Ringer’s (control site); 2) 10 mM ascorbate (anti‐oxidant treated); 3) 10 mM L‐NAME (NO‐inhibited); or 4) a combination of both agents. Cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC; presented as a % of maximum during sodium nitroprusside administration, CVC max ) and sweat rate were measured at each site. The effect of each treatment (i.e., change from the control site) was evaluated separately within each group. No differences in CVC at the control site were observed between HYPE (Ex1: 68 [20]%CVC max ; Ex2: 74 [25]%CVC max ) and CON (Ex1: 63 [16]%CVC max ; Ex2: 68 [20]%CVC max ; both p>.74). In the HYPE, ascorbate augmented CVC during Ex1 (7 [4]%CVC max , P=.003) and Ex2 (8 [6]%CVC max , P=.014‐‐). By contrast, L‐NAME reduced CVC alone (Ex1: −26 [19]%CVC max ; Ex2: −29 [16]%CVC max ; both p<.013) and when administered with ascorbate (Ex1: −19 [15]%CVC max ; Ex2: −19 [14]%CVC max ; both p<.017). In CON, an effect of ascorbate was not observed (Ex1: −5 [20]%CVC max ; Ex2: −11 [21]%CVC max ; both p>.18) and L‐NAME attenuated CVC with (Ex1: −22 [18]%CVC max ; Ex2: −23 [22]%CVC max ; both p<.026) and without ascorbate (Ex1: −24 [14]%CVC max ; Ex2: −22 [23]%CVC max ; both p<.031). Sweat rate was reduced in the HYPE compared to CON group during Ex1 (.39 [15] vs .78 [.31] mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; p=.011) and Ex2 (.39 [15] vs .78 [.31] mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; p=.011) at the control site. Sweating was not influenced by any treatment in HYPE (all p>.07). In CON, ascorbate augmented sweating during Ex 1 (.14 [.16] mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; p=.038) but not Ex2 (.09 [.23] mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; p=.31). No effect on sweating was seen at either NO‐inhibited site in CON (all p>.13). Therefore, in individuals with hypertension exercising in the heat, local administration of ascorbate augments NO‐dependent cutaneous vasodilation but not sweating, while in individuals without hypertension, ascorbate did not affect either heat loss response. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".