Mechanoreceptors of the Rabbit Duodenum

Cottrell, David F.

doi:10.1113/expphysiol.1984.sp002859

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…46,81 Similar afferent endings have been confirmed in other regions of the gut in several species. [82][83][84] These vascular afferent endings are also associated with other viscera, including the spleen, ovary, bladder and pancreas. 85 Endings of this type are sensitive to ischaemia, hypoxia and capsaicin, [86][87][88] and they are believed to comprise a major type of nociceptor.…”

Section: Type V: Spinal Vascular Afferentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extrinsic primary afferent signalling in the gut

Brookes

Spencer

Costa

et al. 2013

Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol

243

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visceral sensory neurons activate reflex pathways that control gut function and also give rise to important sensations, such as fullness, bloating, nausea, discomfort, urgency and pain. Sensory neurons are organised into three distinct anatomical pathways to the central nervous system (vagal, thoracolumbar and lumbosacral). Although remarkable progress has been made in characterizing the roles of many ion channels, receptors, and second messengers in visceral sensory neurons, the basic aim of understanding how many classes there are, and how they differ, has proven difficult to achieve. We suggest that there are just five structurally distinct types of sensory endings in the gut wall that account for essentially all of the primary afferent neurons in the three pathways. Each of these five major structural types of endings seems to show distinctive combinations of physiological responses. These types are: 'intraganglionic laminar' endings in myenteric ganglia; 'mucosal' endings located in the subepithelial layer; 'muscular mucosal' afferents, with mechanosensitive endings close to the muscularis mucosae; 'intramuscular' endings, with endings within the smooth muscle layers; and 'vascular' afferents, with sensitive endings primarily on blood vessels. 'Silent' afferents might be a subset of inexcitable 'vascular' afferents, which can be switched on by inflammatory mediators.Extrinsic sensory neurons comprise an attractive focus for targeted therapeutic intervention in a range of gastrointestinal disorders.2

show abstract

Section: Type V: Spinal Vascular Afferentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Extrinsic primary afferent signalling in the gut

Brookes

Spencer

Costa

et al. 2013

Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol

243

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gastrointestinal distension-responsive afferent fibers are generally considered to be muscle afferent fibers. The location of distension-sensitive afferent fibers in muscle layers has been demonstrated by removal of the underlying mucosa and submucosa (Cottrell 1984;Iggo 1957;Takeshima 1971) without impairing responses to distension. Recent morphological studies have also confirmed the locations and structures of the sensory endings in the stomach.…”

Section: Vagal Innervation Of the Stomachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanosensitive Properties of Gastric Vagal Afferent Fibers in the Rat

Ozaki

Sengupta

Gebhart

1999

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Single, teased fiber recordings were made from the decentralized right cervical vagus nerve (hyponodal) of the rat. A total of 67 afferent fibers that responded to gastric distension (GD) were studied: 9 fibers were stimulated by phasic balloon GD, 58 by more natural fluid GD. All balloon GD-responsive fibers had resting activity (3.1 imp/s), and 57/58 fluid GD responsive fibers had resting activity (1.3 imp/s). All balloon GD-responsive fibers exhibited a dynamic response to phasic distension followed by slow adaptation, whereas fluid GD-responsive fibers exhibited increasing responses as intragastric pressure increased, followed typically by slow adaptation. Responses to graded GD were studied in all fibers, and all gave increasing responses to increasing pressures (5-60 mmHg). Thresholds for response varied between 0 and 18 mmHg. Mean response thresholds for two durations of fluid GD (30 and 60 s) were 5.6 and 3.9 mmHg; the mean response threshold to phasic balloon GD (30 s duration) was 5.3 mmHg. The potential sensitizing effect of platelet activating factor (PAF, 50 or 100 ng. kg(-1). min(-1) for 20 min) infused into the gastric artery was studied in 20 fibers. Fifteen fibers exhibited an increase in spontaneous activity; intragastric pressure also slightly increased during PAF infusion. The increase in activity produced by PAF was attenuated in the presence of the PAF receptor antagonist WEB 2086. After PAF-induced acute inflammation of the stomach, three of five fibers studied did not exhibit any change in response to graded GD. The present study characterized distension-sensitive afferent fibers in the right cervical vagus innervating the stomach of the rat by balloon GD and fluid GD. The results document that all distension-sensitive gastric vagal afferent fibers encoded the intensity of GD, but none had response thresholds in what might be considered the noxious range. PAF infusion activated mechanosensitive gastric vagal afferent fibers, but acute inflammation produced by PAF did not sensitize responses to GD.

show abstract

“…In the esophagus, which is flaccid at rest, the receptors often show a resting discharge related to the respiratory cycle (10-12, 61, 76, 187). In the antrum (16,201,202) and intestine (52,53,120) where spontaneous contractile activity is evident, the resting discharge generally oscillates in phase with spontaneous contractile activity (Fig. 5); a burst of impulses appears each time a contraction passes over the receptive field.…”

Section: Resting Dischargementioning

confidence: 98%

“…However, the boundary of the receptive field is difficult to pinpoint precisely, because probing at one point causes stretch of the muscle layers in adjacent regions. Containment of the receptor endings within the muscle layers has been demonstrated by the removal of the underlying mucosa and submucosa (31,52,120,141) and the overlying peritoneum or serous membrane (31,44) without destroying the mechanical sensitivity. The application of local anesthetics to the mucosal surface is also without effect (44,52,53).…”

Section: Muscle Receptorsmentioning

confidence: 99%