ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2001
Functional characterization of rat submaxillary gland muscarinic receptors using microphysiometry.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of solifenacin.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2009Review
- Effects of ageing on muscarinic receptor subtypes and function in rat urinary bladder.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2005Article
- Functional characterization of rat submaxillary gland muscarinic receptors using microphysiometry.British journal of pharmacology · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. Muscarinic cholinoceptors (MChR) in freshly dispersed rat salivary gland (RSG) cells were characterized using microphysiometry to measure changes in acidification rates. Several non-selective and selective muscarinic antagonists were used to elucidate the nature of the subtypes mediating the response to carbachol. 2. The effects of carbachol (pEC(50) = 5.74 +/- 0.02 s.e.mean; n = 53) were highly reproducible and most antagonists acted in a surmountable, reversible fashion. The following antagonist rank order, with apparent affinity constants in parentheses, was noted: 4-DAMP (8.9)= atropine (8.9) > tolterodine (8.5) > oxybutynin (7.9) > S-secoverine (7.2) > pirenzepine (6.9) > himbacine (6.8) > AQ-RA 741 (6.6) > methoctramine (5.9). 3. These studies validate the use of primary isolated RSG cells in microphysiometry for pharmacological analysis. These data are consistent with, and extend, previous studies using alternative functional methods, which reported a lack of differential receptor pharmacology between bladder and salivary gland tissue. 4. The antagonist affinity profile significantly correlated with the profile at human recombinant muscarinic M(3) and M(5) receptors. Given a lack of antagonists that discriminate between M(3) and M(5), definitive conclusion of which subtype(s) is present within RSG cells cannot be determined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.