Skip to main content
. 2011 Sep;164(2):358–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01356.x

Table 2.

Effects of l-NAME on 2fly, ACh and nitroprusside concentration-relaxation response curves in db/db and C57BL/6J (C57) mesenteric arteries

Drugs Strain (n) Treatment –logEC50 (M) Hill slope Emax (%)
2fly C57 (9) Control 8.26 ± 0.12 2.0 ± 0.3 96 ± 1
C57 (9) l-NAME 7.94 ± 0.10a 1.3 ± 0.2a 90 ± 4
db/db (9) Control 8.07 ± 0.09 2.3 ± 0.3 98 ± 1
db/db (9) l-NAME 7.95 ± 0.11 2.2 ± 0.3 92 ± 3
ACh C57 (6) Control 7.13 ± 0.10 1.2 ± 0.2 93 ± 2
C57 (6) l-NAME 6.97 ± 0.18 1.6 ± 0.3 52 ± 9a
db/db (6) Control 6.57 ± 0.18 1.0 ± 0.2 67 ± 6
db/db (6) l-NAME 6.57 ± 0.43 1.4 ± 0.3 56 ± 12
Nitroprusside C57 (6) Control 7.86 ± 0.33 0.9 ± 0.1 93 ± 2
C57 (6) l-NAME 7.69 ± 0.16 1.3 ± 0.4 95 ± 5
db/db (6) Control 7.27 ± 0.14 1.3 ± 0.4 90 ± 3
db/db (6) l-NAME 7.05 ± 0.24 1.0 ± 0.2 91 ± 6

Values represent mean ± SE for n = number of mice.

Variables were determined by curve fitting data points from cumulative drug concentration–response relationships to four parameter logistic equation.

a

P < 0.05, l-NAME compared with control within strain, two-way anova (strain × artery treatment) followed by Bonferroni post hoc test.

Emax, maximum relaxation response where 100% is complete reversal of contraction. l-NAME (100 µM, 20 min).