4.7 Article

Regional differences in nitrergic innervation of the smooth muscle of murine lower oesophageal sphincter

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 153, 期 3, 页码 517-527

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707573

关键词

ATP; niflumic acid; neuronal nitric oxide synthase; circular smooth muscle; long-lasting slow IJP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Anatomical and pharmacological studies have demonstrated that the lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) is not a simple homogenous circular muscle with uniform innervation. Regional differences have been demonstrated in several species including humans. We investigated, for the first time in mice LES, regionally distinct physiological and pharmacological characteristics of the neuromusculature. Experimental approach: Conventional intracellular recordings and pharmacological techniques were employed to evaluate electrical properties and functional innervation of smooth muscle cells. Results from CD1 (control), nNOS((-/-)) and eNOS((-/-)) genetic knockout mice were compared. Key results: Smooth muscle of sling and clasp LES displayed unitary membrane potentials of 1-4 mV. Transmural nerve stimulation produced a monophasic inhibitory junction potential (IJP) in the sling, whereas in the clasp a biphasic IJP, consisting of a brief IJP followed by a long-lasting slow IJP (lsIJP), was induced. Pharmacological interventions and genetically modified mice were used to demonstrate a monophasic apamin-sensitive (purinergic) component in both LES regions. However, the nitrergic IJP was monophasic in the sling and biphasic in the clasp. Unitary membrane potentials and IJPs were not different in CD1 and eNOS((-/-)) mice, suggesting no involvement of myogenic NOS. Conclusion and implications: These data in mouse LES indicate that there are previously unreported regional differences in the IJP and that both the apamin-resistant monophasic and biphasic IJPs are mediated primarily by nitrergic innervation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据