AJP - GI Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 251: G84-G89, 1986;
0193-1857/86 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murakami, M.
Right arrow Articles by Young, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Murakami, M.
Right arrow Articles by Young, J. A.

AJP - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, Vol 251, Issue 1 84-G89, Copyright © 1986 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Choline evokes fluid secretion by perfused rat mandibular gland without desensitization

M. Murakami, I. Novak and J. A. Young

The secretomotor action of choline on salivary secretion has been studied in the isolated perfused mandibular gland of the rat. Choline made up in substituted Ringer solutions (Na concentrations of 40, 70, or 100 mM) was an effective secretomotor agonist in the concentration range of 1-100 mM and evoked secretory responses comparable with those of acetylcholine (0.05-1.0 microM) administered at similar Na concentrations. Continuous infusion of choline, in contrast to acetylcholine, did not lead to a fall off in the secretory response (desensitization or tachyphylaxis) until the choline concentration used exceeded approximately 80 mM. The secretomotor action of choline (46 mM) was blocked completely and reversibly by atropine (5 microM) but not by propranolol (2.5 microM) and phentolamine (2.5 microM) administered together. When acetylcholine (1.0 or 0.05 microM) was infused on a background of choline stimulation, a small additional secretory response was elicited whenever the choline stimulus was submaximal, and, regardless of the choline concentration employed, addition of acetylcholine always induced tachyphylaxis. The results suggest that choline and acetylcholine act on the same population of muscarinic receptors, but it is unclear why choline does not evoke tachyphylaxis. The response to choline allows us to exclude a number of the possible causes of tachyphylaxis that have previously been considered, so that an excessive buildup of cytosolic free Ca now remains as the most likely cause of the phenomenon.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online