ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology1992
Differences in neurokinin receptor pharmacology between rat and guinea-pig superior cervical ganglia.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 1992. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tachykinins as mediators of slow EPSPs in guinea-pig gall-bladder ganglia: involvement of neurokinin-3 receptors.The Journal of physiology · 1995Article
- Bradykinin receptors in mouse and rat isolated superior cervical ganglia.British journal of pharmacology · 1995Article
- Electrophysiological effects of tachykinins and capsaicin on guinea-pig bronchial parasympathetic ganglion neurones.The Journal of physiology · 1993Article
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. The depolarizations elicited by seven neurokinin receptor agonists were examined in both rat and guinea-pig superior cervical ganglia by use of grease-gap methodology in the presence of tetrodotoxin (0.1 microM). Responses were normalised with respect to 1 microM eledoisin. 2. The rank order of agonist potency in the rat ganglia was senktide greater than substance P greater than substance P methyl ester = eleidosin = Sar-Met-substance P greater than neurokinin B greater than neurokinin A, whereas in guinea-pig superior cervical ganglion (SCG) the rank order was senktide greater than Sar-Met-substance P greater than neurokinin B = eledoisin = substance P methyl ester. The concentration-effect curves for substance P and neurokinin A in guinea-pig ganglia were biphasic which precluded the determination of meaningful potency values. 3. The maximal depolarization achieved by subtype selective ligands was different between these two species. On rat and guinea-pig SCG, the NK3-selective ligand, senktide, produced a maximal depolarization of 27% and 274% respectively, whereas the NK1-selective ligand, substance P methyl ester, produced depolarizations of 77% and 64% respectively. 4. The depolarizations induced by substance P methyl ester and senktide in either species were unaffected by atropine (1 microM), suggesting a lack of involvement of presynaptic neurokinin receptors in the generation of the response. 5. The potency of substance P methyl ester, senktide, and neurokinin A were unaffected by pretreating ganglia with the peptidase inhibitors bacitracin (40 micrograms ml-1), leupeptin (4 micrograms ml-1), and chymostatin (2 micrograms ml-1). Similarly, these peptidase inhibitors had no effect on the maximal depolarizations achieved by any of these agonists.6. It is evident that rat and guinea-pig superior cervical ganglia possess both NK, and NK3 receptors, but that their net contribution to depolarizations are different between the two species. The depolarizations in guinea-pig SCG are mediated predominantly by an NK3 subtype and in rat SCG by an NK, receptor subtype.
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.