Publish in OALib Journal
APC: Only $99
little is known about the effects of estrogen on postischemic cerebral
vasomotor dynamics after ischemic injury. Emerging hypotheses suggest that the
timing after menopause at which hormone replacement is initiated might be
important and might modulate the potential benefits of estrogen on brain rescue once a cerebral ischemic event occurs.
Therefore, we sought to determine if protracted hypoestrogenicity
modifies estrogen’s protective effects on postischemic pial artery dilatory
dysfunction and if the arachidonic acid metabolite 20-hydroxyeicosatetraeonic
(20-HETE) contributes to the dysfunction. Pial artery dilation to acetylcholine
was examined before and 1 hour after 15 minutes forebrain ischemia. The rat
study groups included: sexually mature males (M), naive (N), OVX (OV),
estrogen-treated OVX females (E1; estrogen started 1 week post ovariectomy) and
delayed estrogen-treated (E10; started 10 weeks post ovariectomy) females.
Postischemic responses were assessed before and after superfusion of the
20-HETE synthesis inhibitor N-hydroxy-N’-(4-butyl-2-methylphenyl)-formamidine
(HET0016). Postischemic acetylcholine dilation was depressed in M, OV and E10
compared to N and E1 rats. Compared to E1, delayed estrogen replacement
worsened acetylcholine-induced dilation. Postischemic microvascular estrogen
receptor alpha (ERα) density was
similar in the OV, E1 and E10 rats. Postischemic application of HET0016 failed
to improve acetylcholine dilation. Continuous infusion of HET0016 during and
after ischemia did not reverse postischemic pial vasodilatory dysfunction.
Timing of estrogen replacement may be critical for vascular health after cerebral ischemic injury.
Postischemic loss of acetylcholine reactivity does not appear to involve
mechanisms related to 20-HETE synthesis or microvascular ERα expression.
Seafood plays an important role in human nutrition and its increased consumption is actively recommended for sustenance and health benefits in both developing and developed countries. In parallel to this, the public receives confusing advice as to what seafood is sustainably produced and is frequently misled about the environmental impacts of fishing, especially in locations such as Australia where contemporary fishery management has a conservation and sustainability focus. It is recognised globally that Australia’s traditional fishery management driven by strict sustainability and biodiversity regulations, has achieved impressive results in managing both fish stocks and the effects of fishing on marine environments. Despite this, continued pressure from non-government organisations (NGOs) and a perpetuation of the misuse of management terms such as “overfished” is used to promote the misguided need for ever increasing fishing restrictions, most obviously in “protected areas”. This paper questions the motives of some NGOs and governments in Australia in pursuing additional restrictions on fishing which are mostly unnecessary and disproportionate to the sustainability requirements of other sources of food. This is done within the context of the global need for sustainable seafood supply and the need for effective marine conservation that addresses all threats to marine ecosystems in proportion to the magnitude of each threat.