E M Jarvie1, V J North Laidler, S Corcoran, A Bassil, G J Sanger. 1. Neurology & Gastrointestinal Centre of Excellence for Drug Discovery, GlaxoSmithKline Research & Development Limited, New Frontiers Science Park, Harlow, Essex UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motilin or 5-HT4 receptor agonists stimulate gastrointestinal motility. Differences in activity are suggested but direct comparisons are few. A method was devised to directly compare the gastric prokinetic activities of motilin, the motilin receptor agonist, erythromycin, and the 5-HT4 receptor agonist, tegaserod. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Gastric prokinetic-like activity was assessed by measuring the ability to facilitate cholinergically-mediated contractions evoked by electrical field stimulation (EFS) in rabbit isolated stomach. Comparisons were made between potency, maximal activity and duration of responses. KEY RESULTS: Rabbit motilin (r.motilin) 0.003-0.3 microM, [Nle13]motilin 0.003-0.3 microM, erythromycin 0.3-10 microM and tegaserod 0.1-10 microM caused concentration - dependent potentiation of EFS-evoked contractions. The potency ranking was r.motilin = [Nle13]motilin > tegaserod > erythromycin. The Emax ranking was r.motilin = [Nle13]motilin = erythromycin > tegaserod. Responses to r.motilin and [Nle13]motilin faded rapidly (t1/2 9 and 11 min, respectively) whereas those to erythromycin and tegaserod were maintained longer (t1/2 24 and 28 min). The difference did not appear to be due to peptide degradation. A second application of [Nle13]motilin was excitatory after 60 min contact and fade of the initial response (responses to 0.03 and 0.1 microM [Nle13]motilin were not different from those caused by the first application). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Prokinetic-like activities of the 5-HT4 agonist tegaserod and the motilin receptor agonists were compared by measuring changes in cholinergically-mediated contractions. This novel approach highlighted important differences between classes (greater Emax of motilin, compared with tegaserod) and for the first time, within each class (short t1/2 for motilin, compared with erythromycin).
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motilin or 5-HT4 receptor agonists stimulate gastrointestinal motility. Differences in activity are suggested but direct comparisons are few. A method was devised to directly compare the gastric prokinetic activities of motilin, the motilin receptor agonist, erythromycin, and the 5-HT4 receptor agonist, tegaserod. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: Gastric prokinetic-like activity was assessed by measuring the ability to facilitate cholinergically-mediated contractions evoked by electrical field stimulation (EFS) in rabbit isolated stomach. Comparisons were made between potency, maximal activity and duration of responses. KEY RESULTS:Rabbit motilin (r.motilin) 0.003-0.3 microM, [Nle13]motilin 0.003-0.3 microM, erythromycin 0.3-10 microM and tegaserod 0.1-10 microM caused concentration - dependent potentiation of EFS-evoked contractions. The potency ranking was r.motilin = [Nle13]motilin > tegaserod > erythromycin. The Emax ranking was r.motilin = [Nle13]motilin = erythromycin > tegaserod. Responses to r.motilin and [Nle13]motilin faded rapidly (t1/2 9 and 11 min, respectively) whereas those to erythromycin and tegaserod were maintained longer (t1/2 24 and 28 min). The difference did not appear to be due to peptide degradation. A second application of [Nle13]motilin was excitatory after 60 min contact and fade of the initial response (responses to 0.03 and 0.1 microM [Nle13]motilin were not different from those caused by the first application). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Prokinetic-like activities of the 5-HT4 agonist tegaserod and the motilin receptor agonists were compared by measuring changes in cholinergically-mediated contractions. This novel approach highlighted important differences between classes (greater Emax of motilin, compared with tegaserod) and for the first time, within each class (short t1/2 for motilin, compared with erythromycin).
Authors: M-I Park; I Ferber; M Camilleri; K Allenby; R Trillo; D Burton; A R Zinsmeister Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: S D Feighner; C P Tan; K K McKee; O C Palyha; D L Hreniuk; S S Pong; C P Austin; D Figueroa; D MacNeil; M A Cascieri; R Nargund; R Bakshi; M Abramovitz; R Stocco; S Kargman; G O'Neill; L H Van Der Ploeg; J Evans; A A Patchett; R G Smith; A D Howard Journal: Science Date: 1999-06-25 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: J B Furness; M J Clark; T Wright; P P Bertrand; J C Bornstein; M Verlinden Journal: Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 2.557