Advertisement

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 188–190 | Cite as

The ganglioplegic properties of aminazine (largactil) and mepazine (Pacatal)

  • D. A. Kharkevich
Pharmacology
  • 10 Downloads

Summary

The preganglionic sympathetic trunk of the cat was stimulated by rectangular electric shocks of 20 cps frequency, and the contractions of the nictitating membrane and the biocurrents of the postganglionic fibers of the superior cervical ganglion were simultaneously recorded: neither aminazine (largactil) nor mepazine (pacatal) in doses of 5–10 mg/kg exerts any ganglioplegic effect. Sympatholytic properties of aminazine are more pronounced than those of mepazine.

Keywords

Public Health Electric Shock Pacatal Superior Cervical Ganglion Nictitate Membrane 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. [1]
    I. P. Anokhina, Zhur. Nevropatol. i Psikhiat., vol. 56, No. 6, pp. 478–488 (1956).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Yu. I. Vikhlyaev and G. I. Chugunov, in the book: abstracts of Papers Presented at the Conference on the Problem of the Link between the Structure and Effect of Medicinal Substances, Tartu, pp. 23–24 (1956). In Russian.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. D. Mashkovsky, S. S. Liberman and A. I. Polezhaeva, Farmakol. i Toksikol., vol. 18, No. 1; pp. 14–22 (1955).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. Budde and E. Witzleb, Arch. inf. pharmacodyn., vol. 102, No. 1–2, pp. 126–138 (1955).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    S. Courvoisier, I. Fournel, R. Ducrot, M. Kolsky, and P. Koltcshet, Arch. int. pharmacodyn, vol. 92, pp. 305–361 (1955).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    P. Decourt, M. Brunaud, and S. Brunaud, Compt. rend. soc. biol. vol. 147, pp. 1602–1605 (1953).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M. Holzbauer and M. Vogr, Brit. J. Pharmacol., vol. 9, pp. 402–407 (1954).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    F. Huidobro, Arch. int. pharmacodyn, vol. 98, No. 3, pp. 308–319 (1954).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    H. Kewitz, Arch. exp. path. u. pharmakol., Bd. 222, S. 323–329 (1954).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    H. Kopera, Wien. klin. Wschr., 67, N. 45, S. 867–874 (1955).Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Idem. Ibid, No. 46, S. 887–892, (1955).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    H. Laborit and P. Huguenard, Presse med., ann. 59, No. 64, pp 1329–1329, (1951).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Laborit, P. Huguenard, and P. Alluame. Presse med., No. 10, pp. 206–208 (1952).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    O. Nieschulz, R. Popendiker and I. Hoffmann, Arzneimit.-Forsch., No. 2, S. 680–695 (1955).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    A. Quevauviller, Produits pharm., vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 175–182 (1955).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    I. I. Reuse, Compt. rend. soc. biol. vol. 148, pp. 192–193 (1954).Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    H. Ruppert, Zbl. Gynakol., 77, No. 7, S. 250–256 (1955).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Consultants Bureau 1957

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Kharkevich
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Special PharmacologyInstitute of Pharmacology and Chemotherapy of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSRMoscow

Personalised recommendations