ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2002
Effects of benzothiazepines on human neuronal nicotinic receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural Polyhydroxy Flavonoids, Curcuminoids, and Synthetic Curcumin Analogs as α7 nAChRs Positive Allosteric Modulators.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Effect of triazine derivatives on neuronal nicotinic receptors.ACS chemical neuroscience · 2014Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. We have investigated the effect of diltiazem and its newly synthesized derivative (+,-)-trans-3-acetoxy-8-chloro-2,3-dihydro-5[2-diisopropylamine)ethyl]-2-(4-methoxyphenyl)-1,5-benzothiazepin-4-(5H)-ona hydrochloride (JAC-65) on several recombinant human neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) expressed in Xenopus oocytes. 2. At 3 microM, both drugs have little effect on the maximal currents evoked by brief pulses of acetylcholine (ACh) in five subtypes of nAChRs (alpha7, alpha3beta2, alpha4beta2, alpha3beta4, and alpha4beta4), showing little selectivity among subtypes. 3. However, both drugs accelerate the decay of the ionic currents evoked upon continuous stimulation of ACh, being this effect larger with JAC-65, and in beta4*-nAChRs. Such an effect was dependent on the concentrations of both the drug and of the agonist used, and showed the characteristics of a non-competitive antagonism. 4. We have further investigated the effect of both drugs when combined with submicromolar concentrations of nicotine, such as those present in plasma of cigarette smokers, and found that JAC-65, but not diltiazem, is able to greatly enhance the desensitizing effect of these low concentrations of nicotine, specially in beta4*-nAChRs. 5. Experiments in alpha4beta4-nAChRs failed to show voltage dependence of the action of JAC-65. Moreover, recovery from desensitization followed the same time course regardless of the presence of the drug, suggesting that the main mechanism of action of JAC-65 does not involve open channel block. 6. In summary, both drugs, diltiazem and JAC-65, seem to act through a non-competitive mechanism, accelerating the decay of the ionic currents, being JAC-65 more effective than diltiazem at the concentrations used in beta4*-nAChRs. Thus, the differences between both benzothiazepines when measuring various parameters suggest that their mechanisms of action could be slightly different. This would require further investigation.
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.