Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 87, Issue 2, pp 88–92 | Cite as

Characteristics of late vasoconstrictor A-response in cats after decerebration at different levels of the brain stem

  • Yu. B. Gailans
  • E. V. Lukoshkova
  • V. M. Khayutin
Pathological Physiology and General Pathology


Single stimulation of A-fibers of the tibial nerve in cats decerebrated at the rostral border of the mesencephalon (mesencephalic animals) at various levels of the pons, including the region of the pontobulbar junction, and the most rostral levels of the medulla (pontine animals), or rather more caudally to this region (bulbar animals), evoked a late response in the renal nerve, consisting of excitatory and inhibitory components. In 53% of experiments on pontine animals, 42% of experiments on mesencephalic animals, but only 18% of experiments on bulbar animals the excitatory component of the response was small or even absent. The system generating the inhibitory component of the response was most active and most excitable in the pontine cats. However, features indicating relative potentiation of the inhibitory component of action of impulses in A-afferents on vasoconstrictor neurons in the pontine animals were not sufficiently constant to account for the switch from hypertensive reflexes to impulses from somatic A-afferents into hypotensive, taking place after disconnection of the structures of the pontobulbar junction and rostral levels of the medulla from the mesencephalon.

Key Words

decerebration somatosympathetic responses blood pressure reflexes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Yu. B. Gailans, “Investigation of suprabulbar regulation of vasomotor reflexes evoked by impulses in somatic afferent fibers,” Author's Abstract of Candidate's Dissertation, Moscow (1978).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yu. B. Gailans, E. V. Lukoshkova, and V. M. Khayutin, Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 10, 393 (1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yu. B. Gailans, E. V. Lukoshkova, and V. M. Khayutin, Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 11, 519 (1978).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu. N. Grishanov, I. K. Evstifeev, and V. M. Khayutin, Byull. Éksp. Biol. Med., No. 3, 378 (1978).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. V. Lukoshkova, in: Problems in Space Biology [in Russian], Vol. 31, Moscow (1975), pp. 135–157.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. V. Lukoshkova and G. Pavlik, Pflüg. Arch. Ges. Physiol.,336, 134 (1972).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. M. Khayutin, and E. V. Lukoshkova, Pflüg. Arch. Ges. Physiol.,321, 197 (1970).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    V. M. Khayutin, R. S. Sonina, and E. V. Lukoshkova, Central Organization of Vasomotor Control [in Russian], Moscow (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. H. Coote and J. F. Perez-Gonzales, J. Physiol. (London),208, 261 (1970).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. Imamura, Y. Uchino, S. Ozawa, et al., Brain Res.,16, 351 (1969).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. I. Kleinman and E. P. Radford, J. Appl. Physiol.,19, 360 (1964).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    F. Kirchner, A. Sato, and H. Weidinger, Pflüg. Arch. Ges. Physiol.,319, 1 (1970).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Koizumi, H. Seller, A. Kaufman, et al., Brain. Res.,27, 281 (1971).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Koizumi et al., Ergebn. Physiol.,67, 1 (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. Koizumi and A. Sato, Pflüg. Arch. Ges. Physiol.332, 283 (1972).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Sato, Pflüg. Arch. Ges. Physiol.,332, 117 (1972).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Sato and R. F. Schmidt, Physiol. Rev.,53, 916 (1973).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    I. Wyszogrodski and C. Polosa, Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol.,51, 29 (1973).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu. B. Gailans
  • E. V. Lukoshkova
  • V. M. Khayutin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations