Evidence map›Paper›PMID 7582488›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pharmacology1995

No evidence for a role of muscarinic M2 receptors in functional antagonism in bovine trachea.

A F Roffel, H Meurs, C R Elzinga, J Zaagsma

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pharmacology, 1995. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Second MBritish journal of pharmacology · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A F RoffelGroningen/Utrecht Institute for Drug Exploration, Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
H Meurs
C R Elzinga
J Zaagsma
University of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

1. The functional antagonism between methacholine- or histamine-induced contraction and beta-adrenoceptor-mediated relaxation was evaluated in bovine tracheal smooth muscle in vitro. In addition, the putative contribution of muscarinic M2 receptors mediating inhibition of beta-adrenoceptor-induced biochemical responses to this functional antagonism was investigated with the selective muscarinic antagonists, pirenzepine (M1 over M2), AF-DX 116 and gallamine (M2 over M3), and hexahydrosiladiphenidol (M3 over M2). 2. By use of isotonic tension measurement, contractions were induced with various concentrations of methacholine or histamine, and isoprenaline concentration-relaxation curves were obtained in the absence or presence of the muscarinic antagonists. Antagonist concentrations were chosen so as to produce selective blockade of M2 receptors (AF-DX 116 0.1 microM, gallamine 30 microM), or half-maximal blockade of M3 receptors (pirenzepine 0.1 microM, AF-DX 116 0.5 microM, hexahydrosiladiphenidol 0.03 microM). Since these latter antagonist concentrations mimicked KB values towards bovine tracheal smooth muscle M3 receptors, antagonist-induced decreases in contractile tone were compensated for by doubling the agonist concentration. 3. It was found that isoprenaline-induced relaxation of bovine tracheal smooth muscle preparations was dependent on the nature and the concentration of the contractile agonist used. Thus, isoprenaline pD2 (-log EC50) values were decreased 3.7 log units as a result of increasing cholinergic tone from 22 to 106%, and 2.4 log units by increasing histamine tone over a similar range. Furthermore, maximal relaxability of cholinergic tone decreased gradually from 100% at low to only 1.3% at supramaximal contraction levels, whereas with histamine almost complete relaxation was maintained at all concentrations applied. As a result, isoprenaline relaxation was clearly hampered with methacholine compared to histamine at equal levels of contractile tone.4. In the presence of gallamine, isoprenaline relaxation was facilitated for most concentrations of methacholine, and for all concentrations of histamine. These changes could be explained by the decreased contraction levels for both contractile agonists in the presence of gallamine.5. Isoprenaline-induced relaxation of cholinergic contraction was also facilitated by AF-DX 116 as well as by pirenzepine and hexahydrosiladiphenidol, and these (small) changes were again related to the(small) decreases in cholinergic contraction levels that were present in these experiments despite the additional administration of the agonist to readjust contractile tone. Similarly, changes in isoprenaline relaxation of histamine-induced tone could be explained by different contraction levels.6. These results can be explained by the sole involvement of muscarinic M3 receptors, and provide no evidence for a role of muscarinic M2 receptors in functional antagonism in bovine trachea. Furthermore,they stress the importance of taking into account non-cholinergic controls as well as contraction levels in these experiments.

Indexed as

AnimalsBronchoconstrictor AgentsCattleDose-Response Relationship, DrugGallamine TriethiodideHistamineIn Vitro TechniquesIsoproterenolMethacholine ChlorideMuscarinic AgonistsMuscarinic AntagonistsMuscle ContractionMuscle RelaxationMuscle, SmoothNicotinic AntagonistsParasympatholyticsBronchoconstrictor AgentsGallamine TriethiodidehexahydrosiladifenidolHistamineIsoproterenolMethacholine ChlorideMuscarinic AgonistsMuscarinic AntagonistsNicotinic AntagonistsotenzepadParasympatholyticsPiperidinesPirenzepineReceptors, Adrenergic, betaReceptors, Muscarinic

Identifiers

PMID7582488
PMCPMC1908503
OpenAlexW1984813359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.