Impairment of Sympathetic Transmission by Botulinum Toxin

Rand, M. J.; Whaler, B. C.

doi:10.1038/206588a0

Cited by 74 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results presented in this paper are compatible with the concept of a cholinergic link in adrenergic transmission (Bum & Rand, 1965;Ferry, 1966) although not conclusive proof of such a mechanism (Rand & Whaler, 1965). SUMMARY 1.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

POSTGANGLIONIC PARALYSIS OF THE GUINEA‐PIG HYPOGASTRIC NERVE‐VAS DEFERENS PREPARATION BY CLOSTRIDIUM BOTULINUM TYPE D TOXIN

Westwood

Whaler

1968

British Journal of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Clostridium botulinum type D toxin can, in certain preparations, cause a failure of the response to sympathetic nerve stimulation (Rand & Whaler, 1965). For the guinea-pig isolated hypogastric nerve-vas deferens preparation it might be argued that the block occurs in ganglion-cells within the hypogastric trunk, rather than at postganglionic nerve endings. Although the existence of ganglion-cells in the nerve trunk is accepted, their anatomical position in relation to the vas deferens itself is less clear. Ferry (1963Ferry ( , 1967 has shown that the hypogastric trunk has most of its ganglion-cells in the last 2 cm of the nerve trunk, mainly concentrated 0.4-0.9 cm from the muscle tissue. Thus, unless particular care is taken to have stimulating electrodes closer to the muscle than 0.4 cm, both preganglionic and postganglionic fibres will be stimulated.For the correct interpretation of results from experiments on the action of botulinum toxin on adrenergic nerve endings, the possibility that ganglion-cells are interposed between the point of nerve stimulation and the release of noradrenaline must be ruled out because transmission through such a ganglion cell to the postganglionic fibre is cholinergic and therefore toxin-sensitive. This is especially important when the results are contrary to the accepted belief that adrenergic nerves are not sensitive to botulinum toxin (Ambache 1949(Ambache , 1951Vincenzi, 1967).The experiments reported here were designed to exclude as completely as possible any preganglionic component: the results confirm that botulinum toxin blocks the response of the vas deferens preparation to postganglionic nerve stimulation. METHODS Hypogastric nerve-vas deferens preparationVasa deferentia, obtained from guinea-pigs weighing 300-650 g, were suspended in 50 ml. organ baths as described by Hukovi6 (1961); where possible, paired vasa deferentia from the same animal were used. The bath fluid (usually 40 ml.) was McEwen's (1956) solution, gassed with a mixture of 95% oxygen and 5% carbon dioxide and maintained at either 32' C or 36'-37' C. Isotonic contractions of the muscle were recorded on smoked paper by mean of a frontal writing lever.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

POSTGANGLIONIC PARALYSIS OF THE GUINEA‐PIG HYPOGASTRIC NERVE‐VAS DEFERENS PREPARATION BY CLOSTRIDIUM BOTULINUM TYPE D TOXIN

Westwood

Whaler

1968

British Journal of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Westwood & Wlhaler (1968) and Bond (1969) have given evidence that botulinum toxin (Types D and A) blocks transmission in response to postganglionic nerve stimulation in the guineampig vas deferens. Rand & Whaler (1965) Holman, 1961 ;Holman, 1970 Results.-Responses of both guinea-pig and mouse vas deferens to transmural nerve stimulation with brief trains of pulses were usually depressed after 1-5 h incubation in the toxin. In a typical experiment, tension developed was reduced by about 50% after 3 h but some tension (less -than 5% of control) persisted for up to 6 hours.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Action of botulinum toxin on transmission from sympathetic nerves to the vas deferens

Holman

Spitzer

1973

British J Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Beim TRPV1-Rezeptor ("transient receptor potential vanilloid") kommt es zu einer Hemmung des Einbaus des Rezeptormoleküls in die Zellmembran [32]. BoNT führt außerdem zu einer Reduktion von Muskelspindelafferenzen [17] und zu einer Reduktion der sympathischen Übertragung [40]. Auch eine Wirkung auf spinale μ-Rezeptoren wurde diskutiert [13].…”

Section: Bont In Der Schmerztherapieunclassified