ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology2007
Tachyphylaxis of the ECL-cell response to PACAP: receptor desensitization and/or depletion of secretory products.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 2007. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Presence and Effects of Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase Activating Polypeptide Under Physiological and Pathological Conditions in the Stomach.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2018Review
- The development of multiple probe microdialysis sampling in the stomach.Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeRat stomach ECL cells secrete histamine and pancreastatin in response to gastrin and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide-27 (PACAP). This study applies microdialysis to explore how ECL cells in situ respond to PACAP and gastrin. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Both peptides were administered by microinfusion into the gastric submucosa. The microdialysate was analysed for histamine and pancreastatin (ECL-cell markers) and for somatostatin (D-cell marker). KEY
resultsMicroinfusion of PACAP (0.01-0.3 nmol microl(-1)) raised microdialysate histamine and pancreastatin dose-dependently. The response was powerful but short-lived. The response to gastrin was sustained at all doses tested. It is unlikely that the transient nature of the histamine response to PACAP reflects inadequate histamine synthesis, since the pancreastatin response to PACAP was short-lived too, and both gastrin and PACAP activated ECL-cell histidine decarboxylase. Unlike gastrin, PACAP mobilized somatostatin. Co-infusion of somatostatin abolished the histamine-mobilizing effect of PACAP. However, pretreatment with the somatostatin receptor type-2 antagonist (PRL-2903) did not prolong the histamine response to PACAP, suggesting that mobilization of somatostatin does not explain the transient nature of the response. Repeated administration of 0.1 nmol microl(-1) of PACAP (1 h infusions, 1 h intervals) failed to induce a second histamine response. Pretreatment with a low dose of PACAP (0.03 nmol microl(-1)) abolished the response to a subsequent near-maximal PACAP challenge (0.3 nmol microl(-1)).
conclusionThe transient nature of the histamine response to PACAP reflects desensitization of the PACAP receptor and/or exhaustion of a specific storage compartment that responds to PACAP but not to gastrin.
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.