MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Arginase inhibition and low‐dose sodium nitroprusside administration do not influence heat loss responses during exercise in aged humans

2017· article· en· W4389024391 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert D. Meade, Naoto Fujii, Lacy M. Alexander, Jeffrey C. Louie, Pierre Boulay, Ronald J. Sigal, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsArginaseSodium nitroprussideMicrodialysisNitric oxideSWEATEndocrinologyInternal medicineArginineChemistryForearmNitric oxide synthaseMedicineVasodilationBiochemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age‐related increases in arginase activity may contribute to the diminished cutaneous vasodilatory and sweating responses observed in older relative to younger adults, likely through pathways related to nitric oxide (NO). However, it remains to be elucidated whether arginase inhibition to functionally increase bioavailable NO modulates these heat loss responses in older adults exercising in the heat. Furthermore, it is unknown if the sensitivity of the cutaneous vasculature and sweat gland to NO is altered in older relative to young adults. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess the influence of arginase inhibition and low‐dose sodium nitroprusside (SNP; an NO donor) administration on local cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC) and sweat rate (SR) in young and older adults during exercise in the heat. Ten young (23 ± 3 years) and nine older (66 ± 6 years) males had four intradermal microdialysis fibres inserted into the dorsal forearm skin that were continuously perfused with either: 1) lactated Ringer's (Control); 2) 10 mM N G ‐nitro‐L‐arginine methyl ester (L‐NAME), a non‐selective NO synthase (NOS) inhibitor; 3) 5 mM N ω ‐hydroxy‐nor‐Arginine + 5 mM S‐(2‐boronoethyl)‐L‐cysteine to inhibit arginase activity (Nor‐NOHA+BEC); 4) or 1 μM SNP. Participants performed two 30‐min bouts of semi‐recumbent cycling in the heat (35˚C) at a fixed rate of metabolic heat production of 400 W. The first (Ex1) and second (Ex2) exercise bouts were followed by 20‐ and 40‐min recovery periods, respectively. CVC and SR were continuously measured at each skin site. Relative to Control (Ex1, 57 ± 5; Ex2, 64 ± 8%CVC‐ max ), CVC was reduced with NOS inhibition (Ex1, 32 ± 10; Ex2, 33 ± 7%CVC‐ max ; both P<0.01) in the young adults and was not altered with arginase inhibition (Ex1, 60 ± 10; Ex2, 63 ± 10%CVC‐ max ; both P≥0.65) or the exogenous NO donor (Ex1, 63 ± 13; Ex2, 64 ± 12%CVC‐ max ; both P≥0.38). In the older adults, CVC was attenuated relative to Control (Ex 1, 69 ± 7; Ex2, 67 ± 7%CVC‐ max ) with NOS inhibition during the first (50 ± 16%CVC max ; P=0.02) but not second (50 ± 18%CVC max ; P=0.16) exercise bout. No differences in CVC were found between Control and the arginase inhibited (Ex 1, 68 ± 11%; Ex2, 68 ± 9%CVC‐ max ; both P≥0.78) and the NO donor (Ex 1, 58 ± 10; Ex2, 62 ± 9%CVC‐ max ; both P≥0.10) sites. Relative to Control (Ex1, 0.88 ± 0.20; Ex2 0.93 ± 0.18 mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ), SR was reduced with NOS inhibition (Ex1, 0.77 ± 0.18; Ex2, 0.80 ± 0.16 mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; both P≤0.03) but unaltered with arginase inhibition (Ex1, 0.90 ± 0.20; Ex2, 0.92 ± 0.17 mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; both P≥0.56) and the exogenous NO donor (Ex1, 0.83 ± 0.16; Ex2, 0.90 ± 0.21 mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ; both P≥0.18) in the young adults during both exercise bouts. In contrast, no differences between Control (Ex1, 0.98 ± 0.19; Ex2, 0.96 ± 0.19 mg·min −1 ·cm −2 ) and any treatment site were observed in the older adults (all P≥0.12). Our findings suggest that neither local arginase inhibition nor low‐dose administration of SNP modulate the heat loss responses in young or older adults during exercise in the heat. Support or Funding Information Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (funding held by Glen P. Kenny)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207