Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 628–640 | Cite as

Gastric mucosal damage induced by combination of ethanol and lysophosphatidylcholine

  • Dewey H. Neiderhiser
  • John Maksem
Original Articles

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of lysophosphatidylcholine on the guinea pig stomach after dosing the animal with 20% ethanol by orogastric intubation. We studied four groups of animals; one control group received saline orogastrically followed by buffer and one test group received saline followed by buffer plus 1 mM lysophosphatidylcholine. Two other groups were challenged with 20% ethanol (5 ml) orogastrically followed by buffer or buffer plus 1 mM lysophosphatidylcholine. Compared to other groups, the stomachs of animals given ethanol followed by lysophosphatidylcholine displayed statistically significant increases in the number of gross hemorrhagic lesions, in back-diffusion of hydrogen ion, in net secretion of sodium ion and in morphologic damage. Transmucosal potential differences in this group were also decreased. We conclude that 90 min after dosing with ethanol, the guinea pig stomach is more susceptible to damage by lysophosphatidylcholine. Our data further suggest that these agents cause mucosal damage by different mechanisms and that the combination acts synergistically.

Key Words

gastric ulcer ethanol-induced lysophosphatidylcholine guinea pig 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nalbone G, Lairon D, Charbonnier-Aureire M, Vigne J, Leonardi J, Chabert C, Hauton JC, Verger R: Pancreatic phospholipase A2 hydrolysis of phosphatidylcholine in various physicochemical states. Biochim Biophys Acta 620:612–625, 1980Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rhodes J, Barnardo DE, Philips SF, Rovelstad RA, Hofmann AF: Increased reflux of bile into the stomach in patients with gastric ulcer. Gastroenterology 57:241–252, 1969Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rhodes J, Calcraft B: Aetiology of gastric ulcer with special reference to the roles of reflux and mucosal damage. Clin Gastroenterol 2:227–243, 1973Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyle JM, Neiderhiser DH, Dworken HJ: Duodenogastric reflux in patients with gastric ulcer disease. J Lab Clin Med 103:14–21, 1984Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neiderhiser DH, Morningstar WA, Roth HP: Absorption of lecithin and lysolecithin by the gallbladder. J Lab Clin Med 82:891–897, 1973Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neiderhiser DH, Thornell E, Bjorck S, Svanvik J: The effect of lysophosphatidylcholine on gallbladder function in the cat. J Lab Clin Med 101:699–707, 1983Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weltzien HU: Cytolytic and membrane perturbing properties of lysophosphatidylcholine. Biochim Biophys Acta 559:259–287, 1979Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson AG, McDermott SJ: Lysolecithin: A factor in the pathogenesis of gastric ulceration? Gut 15:710–713, 1974Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maksem J, Jacobson N, Neiderhiser DH: Lysophosphatidylcholine-induced gastric injury and ulceration in the guinea pig. Am J Pathol 115:288–295, 1984Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Robert A, Nezamis JE, Lancaster C, Davis JP, Field SO, Hanchar, AJ: Mild irritants prevent gastric necrosis through “adaptive cytoprotection” mediated by prostaglandins. Am J Physiol 245:G113-G121, 1983Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danon A, Assouline G: Antiulcer activity of hypertonic solutions in the rat: possible role of prostaglandins. Eur J Pharmacol 58:425–431, 1979Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Snedecor GW, Cochran WG: Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1967Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davenport HW: Effect of lysolecithin, digitonin and phospholipase A upon the dog's gastric mucosal barrier. Gastroenterology 59:505–509, 1970Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Orchard R, Reynolds K, Fox B, Andrews R, Parkins RA, Johnson AG: Effect of lysolecithin on gastric mucosal structure and potential difference. Gut 18:457–461, 1977Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Davenport HW: Ethanol damage to canine oxyntic glandular mucosa. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 126:657–662, 1967Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Geall MG, Phillips SF, Summerskill WHJ: Profile of gastric potential difference in man. Effects of aspirin, alcohol, bile and endogenous acid. Gastroenterology 58:437–443, 1970Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallace JL, Morris GP, Krausse EJ, Greaves SE: Reduction by cytoprotective agents of ethanol-induced damage to the rat gastric mucosa: a correlated morphological and physiological study. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 60:1686–1699, 1982Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller TA, Kraemer BB, Henagen JM, Foucar E: Topical 16,16-dimethyl prostaglandin E2: Effect on gastric morphology, hydrogen ion loss and bicarbonate secretion. Dig Dis Sci 28:641–648, 1983Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larsen KR, Moody FG: 16,16-Dimetyl PGE2 and HCO3 efflux. Dig Dis Sci 28:649–650, 1983Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wallace JL: “Cytoprotection”—define it or dispose of it. Dig Dis Sci 31:667, 1986Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deregnaucourt J, Code CF: Increased resistance to the gastric mucosal barrier to barrier breakers in the rat. Gastroenterology 77:309–312, 1979Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller TA, Henagan JM: Indomethacin decreases resistance of gastric barrier to disruption by alcohol. Dig Dis Sci 29:141–149, 1984Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sue MW, Guth PH: A fluorescentin vivo microscopic method to assess surface mucosal integrity in the rat stomach. Gastroenterology 89:415–420, 1985Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kuo J, Shanbour LL, Sernka TJ: Effect of ethanol on permeability and ion transport in the isolated dog stomach. Am J Dig Dis 19:818–824, 1974Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Eastwood GL, Kirchner JP: Changes in the fine structure of mouse gastric epithelium produced by ethanol and urea. Gastroenterology 67:71–84, 1974Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rainsford KD, Willis C: Relationship of gastric mucosal damage induced in pigs by antiinflammatory drugs to their effects on prostaglandin production. Dig Dis Sci 27:624–635, 1982Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ito S, Lacy ER: Morphology of rat gastric mucosal damage, defense and restitution in the presence of luminal ethanol. Gastroenterology 88:250–260, 1985Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lacy ER: Gastric mucosal resistance to a repeated ethanol insult. Scand J Gastroenterol 20 (Suppl 110):63–72, 1985Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bolton JP, Cohen MM: Effect of repeated aspirin administration on the gastric mucosal barrier and cell turnover. J Surg Res 23:251–256, 1977Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Slomiany BL, Jerzy Glass GB, Kojima K, Banas-Gruszka Z, Slomiany A: Effect of lysolecithin on the constituents of gastric mucus. Mucus in health and disease. Adv Exp Med Biol 2:163–174, 1982Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Perry MA, Crook WJ, Granger DN: Permeability of gastric capillaries to small and large molecules. Am J Physiol 241:G478–486, 1981Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Saunders L: Molecular aggregation in aqueous dispersions of phosphatidyl- and lysophosphatidylcholines. Biochim Biophys Acta 125:70–74, 1966Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dewey H. Neiderhiser
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • John Maksem
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Gastroenterology, Research and Laboratory ServicesVeterans Administration Medical CenterCleveland
  2. 2.The Department of PathologySt. Vincent Charity HospitalCleveland
  3. 3.Department of MedicineCase Western Reserve University School of MedicineCleveland

Personalised recommendations