Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We aimed to study 5-HT(4) receptors in canine stomach contractility both in vivo and in vitro. In anaesthetized Beagle dogs, the selective 5-HT(4) receptor agonist prucalopride (i.v.) induced dose-dependent tonic stomach contractions under isobaric conditions, an effect that was antagonized by the selective 5-HT(4) receptor antagonist GR 125487 (10 microg kg(-1), i.v.). Electrical field stimulation (EFS) of corpus longitudinal muscle strips resulted in atropine- and tetrodotoxin-sensitive contractions (L-NOARG (0.1 mM) present in all organ bath solutions). Prucalopride increased these contractions (maximal response after single-dose addition (0.3 microM): 165% of initial value, or after cumulative addition: 188%). In the presence of methysergide (3 microM), 5-HT also increased EFS-contractions (after single-dose addition (0.3 microM): increase to 192%, after cumulative addition: 148%). The selective 5-HT(4) receptor antagonists GR 113808 (0.1 microM) or GR 125487 (10 nM) antagonized the prucalopride (0.3 microM)-induced contraction increments. When EFS-induced contractions were blocked by atropine or tetrodotoxin, prucalopride was ineffective. In the presence of methysergide (3 microM), the contraction increases to 5-HT (0.3 microM) were prevented by GR 113808 (0.1 microM). The prucalopride curve (pEC(50) 7.9) was shifted in parallel to the right by GR 113808 3 nM (pA(2) 9.4). In the presence of methysergide (3 microM), the curve to 5-HT (pEC(50) 8.1) was competitively antagonized by GR 113808, yielding a Schild slope of 0.8+/-0.2 (pK(B) of 9.1 with unit Schild slope). In corpus circular muscle strips, the prucalopride (0.3 microM)-induced augmentation of EFS-contractions (258%) was also prevented by GR 113808 (0.1 microM) (124%). In conclusion, the effects of 5-HT(4) receptor agonists on proximal stomach motor activity in vivo can be explained by an effect on 5-HT(4) receptors on cholinergic nerves within the gastric muscle wall.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Prins et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: