NO inhibit smooth muscle growth

[marator]

From wikipedias smooth muscle page.
"The mechanism in which external factors stimulate growth and rearrangement is not yet fully understood. A number of growth factors and neurohumoral agents influence smooth muscle growth and differentiation. The Notch receptor and cell-signaling pathway have been demonstrated to be essential to vasculogenesis and the formation of arteries and veins. The proliferation is implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and is inhibited by nitric oxide."

NO inhibits smooth muscle growth. Thats NOT good for corpus cavernosa fibrosis!!!
Did anyone consider this?

[NeoV]

This is just wrong, NO bio-availability heals atherosclerosis. Look at pentox, cialis, etc. These things have clearly been shown to improve the collagen to smooth muscle ratio in the penis and HEAL vascular disease.

"A defect in NO production or activity has been proposed as a major mechanism of endothelial dysfunction and a contributor to atherosclerosis."

Nitric oxide and atherosclerosis: An update

Nitric Oxide Synthase in Atherosclerosis and Vascular Injury | Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology

Role of Endothelial Dysfunction in Atherosclerosis | Circulation

I think you are still confused about iNOS, found in the Peyronie's plaques according to that one study. That is not nitric oxide but rather a nitric oxide synthase.

[FriskyDingo]

"The proliferation is implicated in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and is inhibited by nitric oxide"

I think this is just a poorly structured sentence. When the author says 'and is inhibited by nitric oxide' he is probably referring to atherosclerosis, not to proliferation. Grammatically it appears he is referring to proliferation because proliferation is the subject of the sentence. However, that would be going against everything we knew about nitric oxide.

The other possibility is that 'the proliferation' is referring to something other than the vasculogenesis in the previous sentence.

Either way this is just another example of wikipedia not being a reliable source. You often have articles written without a professional review or by authors whose native language is not english. Furthermore, this author could be fluent in english but have translated poorly from another language.

[skunkworks]

Wikipedia can be a good source of information, but only for following the references back to the original source of info. That particular claim isn't tied to reference that I can see.