1951
DOI: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1951.tb00619.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unmasking, After Cholinergic Paralysis by Botulinum Toxin, of a Reversed Action of Nicotine on the Mammalian Intestine, Revealing the Probable Presence of Local Inhibitory Ganglion Cells in the Enteric Plexuses

Abstract: There are several indications that the motor nerves to the intestine are susceptible to the paralysing action of botulinum toxin. Dickson and Shevky (1923) noticed a distinct interference with the intestino-motor function of the vagus in their experiments on cats; and most accounts refer to the obstinate constipation which is a prominent feature of human botulism.The present experiments, conducted on mice and rabbits, aim at demonstrating this condition in isolated intestinal preparations. In mice systemic bot… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

3
26
0
1

Year Published

1955
1955
1998
1998

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
3
26
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the rectal caecum relaxations produced by nicotine were much more marked. Relaxations produced by ganglion stimulants in intestinal preparations are well known (Kuroda, 1917;Ambache & Edwards, 1951;Ambache, 1951;Evans & Schild, 1953;Jarrett, 1962;Greeff, Kasperat & Osswald, 1962;Weiss, 1962;Burn & Gibbons, 1964;Bucknell & Whitney, 1964;Fishlock & Parks, 1966;Burnstock, Campbell & Rand, 1966). Such relaxations produced by nicotine in preparations from other species are usually revealed or potentiated in the presence of atropine, but in the chick gut the contractile action of nicotine, TMA and DMPP were often resistant to the blocking action of atropine and hyoscine, and little or no potentiation of the relaxations occurred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the rectal caecum relaxations produced by nicotine were much more marked. Relaxations produced by ganglion stimulants in intestinal preparations are well known (Kuroda, 1917;Ambache & Edwards, 1951;Ambache, 1951;Evans & Schild, 1953;Jarrett, 1962;Greeff, Kasperat & Osswald, 1962;Weiss, 1962;Burn & Gibbons, 1964;Bucknell & Whitney, 1964;Fishlock & Parks, 1966;Burnstock, Campbell & Rand, 1966). Such relaxations produced by nicotine in preparations from other species are usually revealed or potentiated in the presence of atropine, but in the chick gut the contractile action of nicotine, TMA and DMPP were often resistant to the blocking action of atropine and hyoscine, and little or no potentiation of the relaxations occurred.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DE BURGH DALY AND MARY J. SCOTT There is some evidence in favour of the view that the nicotine-like action of acetylcholine on the spleen is the result of stimulation of peripheral ganglion celLs situated in the vascular bed of the splenic artery. Ambache (1951) has suggested that the inhibitory action of nicotine on the intestine might be due to stimulation of local adrenergic ganglion cells, since it was abolished by hexamethonium and by large doses of nicotine. We have shown that, in atropinized spleen preparations, (1) the acetylcholine contraction of the spleen is potentiated by anticholinesterases and is abolished by hexamethonium; (2) ganglion-stimulating drugs such as nicotine and DMPP cause contraction of the spleen, which is also abolished by hexamethonium, and by anti-adrenaline drugs such as dibenzyline or dibenamine.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it was shown that drugs like atropine, hexamethonium, tetrodotoxin, adrenaline or cooling (Ambache, 1951;McDougal & West, 1954;Day & Vane, 1963;Daniel, 1966;Gershon, 1967) can inhibit, and anticholinesterases can potentiate the action of nicotine-like drugs on the intestine, and it was suggested that their action is mediated through acetylcholine release. Paton & Zar (1968) presented additional evidence for the indirect action of nicotine-like substances; nicotine and DMPP failed to produce contractions in denervated smooth muscle.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%