| Ling Gu acidophilus milk is a kind of fungi which is commonly taken by Tibet herdsmen. Recently, people pay much attention to it, just because its well-known effect on blood pressure depression.Based on the rat model of 2-kidney-l-clip hypertension, this research established a regression equation by virtue of some parameters on rat tail artery pulse waves which measured the rat artery blood pressure indirectly. According to those parameters on rat tail artery pulse waves and the value of the rat artery blood pressure, this subject explored the impact of Ling Gu acidophilus milk I II , which was produced by different technology, on experimental model of 2-kidney-l-clip hypertension rats and their mechanisms. The purpose was to supply useful theoretical references by making a kind of functional fungi for further exploration on the acidophilus milk with blood-pressure-depression function.(1) This experiment established the regression equation for indirectly measuring rat artery systolic pressure by virtue of pulse wave parameters ,such as wave cycle, K value, AT, H(l+ts/td), g/H, was an ideal method for observing the rat artery blood pressure dynamically without damage to animal, which have performed well in the subject.(2) Three groups of Ling Gu acidophilus milk I with low, middle and high dosage were all functional in depressing blood pressure, with the depression effect of 25%, 27% and 33% respectively; three groups of Gu acidophilus milk II with low, middle and high dosage depressed the animal blood pressure of 28%, 30%, 35% respectively. Both Ling Gu acidophilus milk I and Ling Gu acidophilus milk II could depress the blood pressure of hypertension rats which compared without them, the effects of blood pressure depression were significantly (p<0.01) and the relationship between quantum and effect was clearly showed. Of them, the blood pressure depression effects of Ling Gu acidophilus milk II were stronger than that of I . There were no obvious differences in the groups with compound depression tablets, while compared with the model groups there were obvious differences in them (P<0.01). |