1962
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1962.tb01165.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Comparison of the Responses of the Tenuissimus Muscle to Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs in Vivo and in Vitro

Abstract: In view of the differing responses to decamethonium which have been reported for the isolated tenuissimus muscle on the one hand and the tibialis muscle of the cat on the other hand, the responses of the tenuissimus muscle to neuromuscular blocking drugs were studied both in vivo and in vitro and compared with those of the tibialis anterior muscle. In both muscles in vivo, the block produced by decamethonium had all the well‐known characteristics of blockade due to long‐lasting depolarization, independent of t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

1963
1963
1994
1994

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A similar effect has been reported in the cat tenuissimus muscle in vivo (Maclagan, 1962), but in the absence of measurements of plasma concentration of the drug it was attributed to a reduction in the infusion rate. These results in the cat are comparable to those obtained in vivo in the rat (Creese & Maclagan, 1970) and in man (Poulsen & Hougs, 1958 (Creese & Maclagan, 1970) are comparable to those obtained by many authors in isolated muscle from the frog (Gissen & Nastuk, 1966), cat (Maclagan, 1962), rat (Thesleff, 1955;Gibberd, 1966;Harris & Leach, 1970), guinea-pig (Jenden, 1955), rabbit (Jenden, Kamijo & Taylor, 1954) and man (Creese, Dillon, Marshall, Sabawalla, Schneider, Taylor & Zinn, 1957). In vitro, as in vivo, the recovery of the twitch during prolonged application of the drug is critically dependent on the dose (Jenden et al, 1954;Gissen & Nastuk, 1966).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…A similar effect has been reported in the cat tenuissimus muscle in vivo (Maclagan, 1962), but in the absence of measurements of plasma concentration of the drug it was attributed to a reduction in the infusion rate. These results in the cat are comparable to those obtained in vivo in the rat (Creese & Maclagan, 1970) and in man (Poulsen & Hougs, 1958 (Creese & Maclagan, 1970) are comparable to those obtained by many authors in isolated muscle from the frog (Gissen & Nastuk, 1966), cat (Maclagan, 1962), rat (Thesleff, 1955;Gibberd, 1966;Harris & Leach, 1970), guinea-pig (Jenden, 1955), rabbit (Jenden, Kamijo & Taylor, 1954) and man (Creese, Dillon, Marshall, Sabawalla, Schneider, Taylor & Zinn, 1957). In vitro, as in vivo, the recovery of the twitch during prolonged application of the drug is critically dependent on the dose (Jenden et al, 1954;Gissen & Nastuk, 1966).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…Desensitization in solution supplemented with constituents of tissue-culture media Since there is some indirect evidence to suggest that desensitization is more rapid in vitro than in vivo (Zaimis, 1959(Zaimis, , 1962Maclagan, 1962), it could be argued that this is because the bathing solutions normally used with isolated muscles lacked an important factor present in the living animal. It is, of course, well known that isolated cells survive for long periods only if they are kept in the supplemented media used in tissue culture, and it was thought possible that some of the factors included in such media might influence desensitization.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This loss of distinguishing characteristics is probably related to the changes in ion permeability which occur in isolated tissues (Creese & Northover, 1961;Krnjevic & Miledi, 1958), and also to the way in which the drug reaches the receptor sites (Gibberd, 1966). The most obvious characteristic common to all isolated nerve-muscle preparations is the biphasic response of the muscle to the continuing presence of the blocking agent (Jenden, Kamijo & Taylor, 1954;Jenden, 1955;Sabawala & Dillon, 1959;Maclagan, 1962;Taylor, 1962;Whittaker, 1962a, Freeman, 1968a. This response in particular has led to many of the current theories of the mechanism of depolarizing blockade in isolated nerve-muscle preparations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%