Cited by 52Nitric Oxide and Endothelin EffectsCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionRedox biology and oxidative stress

Measurement of in vivo nitric oxide synthesis in humans using stable isotopic methods: a systematic review.

Open access
Siervo, M., Stephan, B.C.M., Feelisch, M., Bluck, L.J.C.·2011·Free Radical Biology and Medicine

Abstract

Stable isotopic methods are considered the "gold standard" for the measurement of rates of in vivo NO production. However, values reported for healthy human individuals differ by more than 1 order of magnitude. The reason for the apparent variability in NO production is unclear. The primary aim of this review was to evaluate and compare the rates of in vivo NO production in health and disease using stable isotope methods. Articles were retrieved using the PubMed electronic database. Information on concentrations, isotopic enrichments of fluxes, and conversion rates of molecules involved in the NO metabolic pathway was extracted from selected articles; 35 articles were included in the final analysis. Three protocols were identified, including the arginine-citrulline, the arginine-nitrate, and the oxygen-nitrate protocols. The arginine-citrulline protocol showed a wider variability compared to the arginine-nitrate and oxygen-nitrate protocols. The direction of the association between disease state and rate of NO production was essentially determined by the etiopathogenesis of the disorder (inflammatory, metabolic, vascular). Considerable variation in methodologies used to assess whole-body NO synthesis in humans exists. The precision of several aspects of the techniques and the validity of some assumptions made remain unknown, and there is a paucity of information about physiological rates of NO production from childhood over adolescence to old age.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.05.032

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siervo, M., Stephan, B. C. M., Feelisch, M., & Bluck, L. J. C.
Affiliations
  • MRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
Corresponding author
Siervo, M.
Venue
Free Radical Biology and Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
51
Issue
4
Pages
795-804
ISSN
0891-5849 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989312455
Cited by
52
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Free Radical Biology and Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nitric Oxide and Endothelin Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Redox biology and oxidative stress
Keywords
nitric oxide production, nitric oxide metabolism, interindividual variability, healthy volunteers
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Arginine, Arteries, Cardiovascular Diseases, Citrulline, Humans, Nitrates, Nitric Oxide, Oxygen, Radioisotopes, Vasodilation, Reproducibility of Results, Clinical Laboratory Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review