The influence of hemicholinium no. 3 and vagus stimulation on acetylcholine distribution in the cat's heart

  • K. Bielecki
  • B. Lewartowski


1. The acetylcholine distribution in hearts of normal cats and in hearts of animals treated with hemicholinium no. 3 was tested.

2. The greatest content of acetylcholine was found in the S-A node region. In other parts of the heart the amount of acetylcholine was markedly lower, diminishing in the following order: right auricle, left auricle, and right ventricle.

3. Hemicholinium no. 3 did not influence the acetylcholine content of the heart if the vagus nerves were not stimulated.

4. Stimulation of the vagus nerves in animals treated with hemicholinium resulted in the drop of acetylcholine content in all tested parts of the heart by more than 50%. The ratio of residual acetylcholine content in the tested parts of the heart was similar to the ratios of initial content.

5. The fraction remaining in the heart is believed to be of almost purely extranervous origin. Its content is largest in those parts of the heart which show the highest degree of automaticity. The significance of this fraction for cardiac activity is discussed.


Human Physiology Acetylcholine Node Region Vagus Nerve Vagus Stimulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Birks, A., and F. C. MacIntosh: Canad. J. Biochem. 39, 787 (1961).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Briscoe, S., and J. H. Burn: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 126, 181 (1954).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bülbring, E., and J. H. Burn: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 108, 508 (1949).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burn, J. H., and M. J. Rand: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 138, 172 (1957).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    —— —— J. Physiol. (Lond.) 142, 173 (1958).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ——, and J. M. Walker: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 131, 317 (1956).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, H. C., and J. H. Gaddum: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 79, 255 (1933).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang, V., and M. J. Rand: Brit. J. Pharmacol. 15, 588 (1960).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, J. E.: Amer. J. Physiol. 162, 616 (1950).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Day, M.: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 134, 558 (1956).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardiner, J. E.: Biochem. J. 81, 297 (1961).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoffman, B. F., A. A. Siebens, and Ch. McC. Brooks: Amer. J. Physiol. 169, 377 (1952).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ——, and E. E. Suckling: Amer. J. Physiol. 173, 312 (1953).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewartowski, B., and K. Bielecki: J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 142, 24 (1963).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacIntosh, F. C.: Fed. Proc. 20, 526 (1961).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cited after MacIntosh, F. C., and W. L. M. Perry: Methods in Medical Research, Vol. 3, p. 78. Chicago: Book Publishers, Inc. 1950.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Malhotra, C. I., and P. K. Das: Brit. J. Pharmacol. 18, 190 (1962).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ——, and P. G. Pundlik: Brit. J. Pharmacol. 14, 46 (1959).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Masrshall, J. M., and E. M. Vaughan Williams: J. Physiol. (Lond.) 131, 186 (1956).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rothschuh, K. E.: Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol. 258, 406 (1954).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schueler, F. W.: J. Pharmacol. exp. Ther. 115, 127 (1955).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Trautwein, W., W. J. Whalen u. E. Grosse-Schulte: Pflügers Arch. ges. Physiol. 270, 560 (1960).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vlk, J., and S. Tuček: Physiol. bohemoslov. 10, 65 (1961).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1964

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Bielecki
    • 1
  • B. Lewartowski
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human PhysiologySchool of MedicineWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations