MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sweating During Intermittent Exercise in the Heat in Young and Older Adults: A Role for P2 Receptors

2016· article· en· W4389024440 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Pegah Akbari, Naoto Fujii, Imane Foudil‐bey, Robert D. Meade, Maya Shankar Singh, Pierre Boulay, Ronald J. Sigal, Glen P. Kenny

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de SherbrookeUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReceptorPurinergic receptorSWEATMicrodialysisEndocrinologyInternal medicineNitric oxideAgeingP2Y receptorChemistryNitric oxide synthaseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent findings have identified nitric oxide synthase (NOS) as an important modulator of sweating during exercise. Additionally, in vitro studies have identified the presence of P2 receptors (a subgroup of purinergic receptors) on human eccrine sweat glands, which may indicate that these receptors can modulate sweating. If so, these receptors may influence sweating through NOS‐dependent mechanisms, given that P2 receptor activation can increase calcium ion concentration, which in turn can activate NOS. Studies also demonstrate that NOS‐dependent sweating is impaired in older adults during exercise in the heat. In parallel, P2 receptors are down regulated in older adults, suggesting the contribution of P2 receptors, if any, to sweating may also be impaired. Thus, we assessed the separate and combined contribution of NOS and P2 receptors to the sweating response during exercise in the heat. Additionally, we evaluated whether ageing influences these responses. Eight young (24±4 years) and nine older (57±6 years) adults performed an intermittent cycling protocol consisting of two 30 min bouts of exercise (Ex) at a fixed rate of heat production of 400 W in the heat (35°C); followed by 20 and 40 min of recovery respectively. Sweat rate (ventilated capsule) was monitored at four forearm skin sites continuously perfused via intradermal microdialysis: 1) lactated Ringer (Control), 2) 10 mM N G ‐nitro‐ L ‐arginine methyl ester ( L ‐NAME, a non‐selective NOS inhibitor), 3) 100 mM pyridoxine (PDX, non‐selective P2 receptor blocker), or 4) a combination of PDX and L ‐NAME. We show that in young adults, administration of L ‐NAME attenuated sweat rate (Ex1: 0.65 mg min −1 cm −2 ; Ex2: 0.67 mg min −1 cm −2 ) in comparison to Control (Ex1: 0.79 mg min −1 cm −2 ; Ex2: 0.82 mg min −1 cm −2 ) at the end of both exercise bouts (both P≤0.05). Further, infusion of PDX, both independently (Ex1: 0.69 mg min −1 cm −2 , P=0.07; Ex2: 0.73 mg min −1 cm −2 , P=0.04) and in combination with L ‐NAME (Ex1: 0.69 mg min −1 cm −2 , P=0.04; Ex2: 0.74 mg min −1 cm −2 , P=0.09), tended to reduce sweat rate relative to Control; albeit, these responses were not all statistically significant. However, the magnitude of reduction at each site compared to Control were not different (P=0.32). Finally, no differences in local sweat rate were observed between treatment sites in older adults (P=0.20). In summary, our findings indicate that P2 receptor activation can contribute to sweating in young adults through a NOS‐dependent mechanism. However, the contribution of these pathways to the sweating response is diminished in older adults. Support or Funding Information Funding support: This study was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Discover grant, RGPIN‐06313‐2014; Discovery Grants Program ‐ Accelerator Supplement, RGPAS‐462252‐2014; funds held by Dr. 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: Observational
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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