Literature DB >> 19352164

Resistance to D-tubocurarine of the rat diaphragm as compared to a limb muscle: influence of quantal transmitter release and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.

Tu Nguyen-Huu1, Jordi Molgó, Denis Servent, Philippe Duvaldestin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diaphragm is resistant to competitive neuromuscular blocking agents, as compared to peripheral muscles. The basis of this difference may be a higher concentration of acetylcholine released or higher number of postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in diaphragmatic neuromuscular junctions.
METHODS: Nerve-evoked twitch-tension was measured in rat hemidiaphragm as was Extensor digitorum longus (EDL) nerve-muscle preparation to determine the effective D-tubocurarine concentration that decreased twitch responses by 50%. The mean quantal content of endplate potentials was determined in single junctions in a low-Ca(2+), high-Mg(2+) Krebs-Ringer medium. Strips of hemidiaphragm and EDL muscle, containing the endplate regions, were used to determine the number of nAChR nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding sites with the aid of radiolabeled [(125)I]alpha-bungarotoxin.
RESULTS: The effective D-tubocurarine concentration that decreased twitch responses by 50% (median [interquartile range]) was seven-fold higher in the hemidiaphragm than in the EDL (1.82 microm [1.43-2.20] vs. 0.26 microm [0.23-0.29], P < 0.01). The median of the mean quantal content was higher in the hemidiaphragm than in the EDL (0.57 [0.44-0.84] vs. (0.14 [0.11-0.19], P < 0.01). The number of specific [(125)I]alpha-bungarotoxin binding sites to junctional nicotinic acetylcholine receptors was higher in the diaphragm than in the EDL (1.15 fmol/mg [0.48-1.70] vs. 0.55 fmol/mg [0.23-0.70 ], P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The current study indicates that the resistance of the diaphragm to neuromuscular blocking agents can be explained by both a higher mean quantal content of endplate potentials and a higher number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor binding sites than in the peripheral EDL muscle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19352164     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31819faeaa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  5 in total

1.  Role of acetylcholinesterase on the structure and function of cholinergic synapses: insights gained from studies on knockout mice.

Authors:  Michael Adler; Richard E Sweeney; Tracey A Hamilton; Oksana Lockridge; Ellen G Duysen; Angela L Purcell; Sharad S Deshpande
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 5.046

2.  Recovery of muscle function after deep neuromuscular block by means of diaphragm ultrasonography and adductor of pollicis acceleromyography with comparison of neostigmine vs. sugammadex as reversal drugs: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Iacopo Cappellini; Fabio Picciafuochi; Daniele Ostento; Ginevra Danti; Angelo Raffaele De Gaudio; Chiara Adembri
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Guanidine affects differentially the twitch response of diaphragm, extensor digitorum longus and soleus nerve-muscle preparations of mice.

Authors:  Rosana Ferrari; Léa Rodrigues-Simioni; Maria Alice da Cruz Höfling
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 4.  Pinnatoxins' Deleterious Effects on Cholinergic Networks: From Experimental Models to Human Health.

Authors:  Nicolas Delcourt; Emmeline Lagrange; Eric Abadie; Valérie Fessard; Jean-Marc Frémy; Jean-Paul Vernoux; Marie-Bénédicte Peyrat; Thomas Maignien; Nathalie Arnich; Jordi Molgó; César Mattei
Journal:  Mar Drugs       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 5.118

5.  Comparison of the effects of neostigmine and sugammadex on postoperative residual curarization and postoperative pulmonary complications by means of diaphragm and lung ultrasonography: a study protocol for prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yu-Guan Zhang; Ying Chen; Yue-Lun Zhang; Jie Yi
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-05-07       Impact factor: 2.279

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.