ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology1993
Effects of ruthenium red and capsazepine on C-fibres in the rabbit iris.
Article in British journal of pharmacology, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterization using FLIPR of rat vanilloid receptor (rVR1) pharmacology.British journal of pharmacology · 2000Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
1. We have investigated the effects of ruthenium red and capsazepine on a C-fibre-smooth muscle preparation (the rabbit isolated iris sphincter muscle). 2. Like capsaicin, ruthenium red and capsazepine were found to produce contractions in a concentration-dependent manner. C-fibre activation was held to be responsible since the contractions could be inhibited by tachykinin receptor blockade. 3. Both ruthenium red and capsazepine inhibited capsaicin-induced contractions concentration-dependently; the pIC50 values were 5.1 and 4.9, respectively. The contractions induced by bradykinin, which, like capsaicin, acts by releasing tachykinins from C-fibres, were also inhibited by ruthenium red and capsazepine in a concentration-dependent manner; the pIC50 values were 4.1 and 4.6, respectively. 4. Electrically evoked, tachykinin-mediated contractions were inhibited by ruthenium red and capsazepine in a concentration-dependent manner; the pIC50 values were 4.3 and 4.5, respectively. 5. The contractile response to neurokinin A (NKA) was inhibited by capsazepine (and by capsaicin), but not by ruthenium red, in a concentration-dependent manner; the pIC50 value was 4.3. 6. The results suggest that, besides their ability to antagonize capsaicin, ruthenium red and capsazepine possess a weak capsaicin-like effect. Conceivably, capsazepine interacts with binding sites for capsaicin, acting as a partial agonist/antagonist, while ruthenium red interacts with capsaicin-operated cation channels. The inhibition of electrically evoked- or bradykinin-induced responses by capsazepine and ruthenium red suggests that capsaicin/capsazepine binding sites and capsaicin-operated cation channels play a role in the process of transmitter release in response not only to capsaicin but also to other C-fibre stimuli. In addition, capsazepine (and capsaicin) may affect smooth muscle non-specifically since the response to NKA was also inhibited by this drug. The fact that ruthenium red did not affect the response to NKA provides further evidence that ruthenium red acts in a mode different from that ofcapsazepine.
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.