JPET

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yates, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gillis, C. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Yates, C. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gillis, C. N.
Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics, Vol. 140, Issue 1, 52-59, 1963
Copyright © 1963 by American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics


THE RESPONSE OF RABBIT VASCULAR TISSUE TO ELECTRICAL AND DRUG STIMULATION

C. M. Yates 1 and C. N. Gillis 1

1 Department of Pharmacology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada, and Laboratory of Psychopharmacology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut

The secondary contraction of isolated rabbit aorta and carotid artery preparations, which normally follows the cessation of electrical stimulation, has been shown to be blocked by pretreatment of the animals with 2 mg of reserpine per kg, given intravenously either 24, 4 or 2 hours before removal of the vascular tissues. At each time of pretreatment, this dose of reserpine significantly reduced the amount of catecholamines present in the carotid artery. The lowering of the mean concentration of catecholamine in the aorta was statistically significant, however, only when reserpine was given 2 or 4 hours before excision of the tissue. Attempts to restore the response to normal by the addition of norepinephrine, epinephrine or dopamine to the bathing medium or by the administration of norepinephrine or dopamine before sacrifice were unsuccessful. The secondary response to electrical stimulation of tissue from untreated animals was reversibly blocked by either piperoxan or bretylium. These observations can be explained by assuming, with Furchgott (1952), that the secondary contraction is attributable to the liberation of catecholamine from the vessel wall. Isolated aorta from reserpine-treated rabbits showed a 30-fold increase in sensitivity to a range of concentrations of both norepinephrine and epinephrine.

Submitted on November 7, 1962
Accepted on January 11, 1963







Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 1963 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.