Abstract:(-)-,f-Hydroxyphenethylguanidine is the most active of a series of aralkylguanidines studied for their ability to lower the noradrenaline content of sympathetically-innervated tissues. It is several times more potent in this respect than guanethidine, but, unlike guanethidine, it produces only weak impairment of sympathetic transmission. In this paper we have compared the mechanisms of noradrenaline depletion by guanethidine and (-)-,8-hydroxyphenethylguanidine, and studied the relationship between noradrenali… Show more
“…Similarly, SK&F 24260 (Maxwell, Mull & Plummer, 1959;Maxwell, Plummer, Schneider, Povalski & Daniel, 1960) by interfering with the synthesis of noradrenaline (Abercrombie & Davies, 1963) or by otherwise depleting the local stores. Fielden & Green (1967) concluded that guanethidine also had a strong adrenergic neurone blocking action distinct from the depleting action. It has been suggested that a reduction in total peripheral resistance (by blocking the sympathetic nervous system) is the mechanism by which guanethidine lowers blood pressure (Chamberlain & Howard, 1964).…”
IThe use of radioactive microspheres is described for the measurement of cardiac output in anaesthetized rabbits and its redistribution after the administration of drugs which lower blood pressure.2 Hydralazine increased peripheral vascular conductance by 123%. The vascular beds in which it had most effect were those of the carcass (mainly muscle) and the kidneys. 3 SK&F 24260,(1,4 dihydro-2, 6-dimethyl-4-(2-trifluormethylphenyl)-3,5,-pyridinedicarboxylic acid diethyl ester), had similar vasodilator actions. Its effect in the carcass contributed relatively more to the increase of total peripheral conductance. It also caused a remarkable degree of cerebral vasodilatation. 4 Guanethidine had a relatively small effect on total peripheral conductance and lowered blood pressure mainly by reducing stroke volume and cardiac output.
“…Similarly, SK&F 24260 (Maxwell, Mull & Plummer, 1959;Maxwell, Plummer, Schneider, Povalski & Daniel, 1960) by interfering with the synthesis of noradrenaline (Abercrombie & Davies, 1963) or by otherwise depleting the local stores. Fielden & Green (1967) concluded that guanethidine also had a strong adrenergic neurone blocking action distinct from the depleting action. It has been suggested that a reduction in total peripheral resistance (by blocking the sympathetic nervous system) is the mechanism by which guanethidine lowers blood pressure (Chamberlain & Howard, 1964).…”
IThe use of radioactive microspheres is described for the measurement of cardiac output in anaesthetized rabbits and its redistribution after the administration of drugs which lower blood pressure.2 Hydralazine increased peripheral vascular conductance by 123%. The vascular beds in which it had most effect were those of the carcass (mainly muscle) and the kidneys. 3 SK&F 24260,(1,4 dihydro-2, 6-dimethyl-4-(2-trifluormethylphenyl)-3,5,-pyridinedicarboxylic acid diethyl ester), had similar vasodilator actions. Its effect in the carcass contributed relatively more to the increase of total peripheral conductance. It also caused a remarkable degree of cerebral vasodilatation. 4 Guanethidine had a relatively small effect on total peripheral conductance and lowered blood pressure mainly by reducing stroke volume and cardiac output.
“…Guanethidine (0.02 mg/g bw) was injected once on day 0, followed by a single injection on day 3 (0.04 mg/g bw) to selectively deplete NA stores without destruction of nerve endings (early recovery, (20)). 6-OHDA (0.03 mg/g bw) was injected once on days 0 and 1 to selectively destroy NA containing nerve endings (late recovery).…”
“…In the current study, we therefore investigated whether alterations in adrenergic skin innervation or b-AR stimulation by neurotransmitters may stimulate telogen-anagen transformation of murine HFs in vivo. Using the C57BL/6 mouse model for hair research, the NAdepleting agent guanethidine was administered s.c. to transiently empty noradrenaline stores of cutaneous adrenergic nerve fiber endings (20); the neurotoxin 6-OHDA was applied s.c. to selectively destroy noradrenergic nerve fiber endings (15); and the b-AR agonist isoproterenol was studied to test the effect of b-AR stimulation (13).…”
Since we have recently shown that the β2‐adrenoreceptor (β2‐AR) expression of selected regions of the hair follicle (HF) epithelium as well as the number of adrenergic nerve fibers in murine skin change in a hair cycle‐dependent manner, this has raised the possibility that adrenergic nerves may exert “trophic” functions during HF cycling. To further explore this concept, we have investigated the effect of neuro‐pharmacological manipulations on hair growth (anagen) induction in quiescent telogen mouse skin in vivo. Here, we demonstrate that subcutaneous injections of the noradrenaline (NA)‐depleting agent guanethidine, or of the neurotoxin 6‐hydroxydopaine, but not of the β2‐AR agonist isoproterenol induce a premature onset of anagen in the lower back skin of C57BL/6 mice. On day 20 after the start of treatment, more than 80% of the guanethidine‐treated mice and ca. 65% of the 6‐hydroxydopamine‐treated (6‐OHDA) mice exhibited premature skin darkening and hair growth at the site of drug application, whereas less than one‐third of all control animals showed macroscopic signs of anagen developent. This was confirmed by histology, demonstrating mature anagen VI HFs only at the immediate site of treatment with guanethidine of 6‐OHDA as opposed to resting telogen HFs in the neighboring untreated skin area. This observation further supports the concept that sympathetic nerves are intimately involved in hair growth control and invites one to explore the neuro‐pharmacological manipulation of piloneural interactions as a novel therapeutic strategy for the management of hair growth disorders.
“…In contrast to guanacline, which does not reduce responses, the block of responses to electrical stimulation produced during guanethidine treatment could be due to the potent and specific adrenergic neurone blocking action of this drug, independent of noradrenaline depletion. This action has been well documented and reviewed (Boura & Green, 1965;Fielden & Green, 1967) and would result in a much-reduced release of noradrenaline. Although there are no published reports comparing the adrenergic neurone blocking potency of guanethidine and guanacline, the relative effect of these two drugs in acute experiments would indicate that guanacline was a much weaker adrenergic neurone blocking drug, that is, it would not block the release of noradrenaline as much as would guanethidine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…This action has been well documented and reviewed (Boura & Green, 1965;Fielden & Green, 1967) and would result in a much-reduced release of noradrenaline. Ambache & Zar (1971), that the motor response may be at least partly non-adrenergic.…”
In acute experiments guanethidine was considerably more potent than guanacline in reducing contractile responses of the rat vas deferens to electrical stimulation of intramural nerves.
Chronic treatment of rats for 19 weeks with guanethidine (5mg/kg, daily) reduced responses to electrical stimulation to 25% of control, potentiated responses to exogenous noradrenaline and depleted endogenous noradrenaline.
After cessation of guanethidine treatment responses to electrical stimulation increased to 60% of control (in one week) but showed no further increase. There was no decrease in the potentiation of exogenous noradrenaline (after 14 weeks) nor any increase in endogenous noradrenaline levels (after 7 weeks).
Chronic treatment of rats for 19 weeks with guanacline (5mg/kg, daily) potentiated responses to exogenous noradrenaline and depleted endogenous noradrenaline as much as guanethidine treatment but did not reduce responses to electrical stimulation.
On cessation of guanacline treatment there was some increase in noradrenaline content (after 2 to 3 weeks) and some decrease of potentiated responses to exogenous noradrenaline (after 2 weeks).
The noradrenaline‐depleting action of these drugs is distinct from blockade of nerve‐mediated responses in the rat vas deferens and contractile function after guanethidine treatment can be partly restored despite persistence of noradrenaline depletion and supersensitivity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.