Advertisement

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 289–297 | Cite as

Less Irritative Action of Wine and Japanese Sake in Rat Stomachs: A Comparative Study with Ethanol

  • Akari Nakagiri
  • Kazuhiro Fukushima
  • Shinichi Kato
  • Koji TakeuchiEmail author
Esophageal, Gastric, and Duodenal Disorders

Abstract

The ingestion of alcohol, especially in excess, causes acute gastric lesions and gastritis in humans, yet the mucosal irritative action of alcoholic beverages remains largely unknown. We examined the mucosal irritative action of whiskey, wine and Japanese sake in the rat stomach both ex vivo and in vitro, in comparison with ethanol. Under urethane anesthesia, a rat stomach was mounted in an ex vivo chamber, then superfused with saline, and the transmucosal potential difference (PD) was measured. After the basal PD had stabilized, the mucosa was exposed for 30 min to 2 ml of 15% ethanol, whiskey (containing 15% ethanol), white wine, or Japanese sake (the ethanol concentration of the latter two is 12–15%). In the in vitro study, rat epithelial cells (RGM1) were treated with the alcoholic beverages for 5 min, and the cell viability was determined with crystal violet. Ethanol or whiskey applied to the chamber caused a decrease in PD, while wine or Japanese sake did not. Histologically, surface epithelial damage was observed after exposure to both ethanol and whiskey, yet no damage was induced by white wine and Japanese sake. Likewise, both ethanol and whiskey markedly reduced the viability of RGM1 cells after 5 min of incubation, while neither white wine nor Japanese sake had any effect. In addition, supplementation of glucose significantly prevented the reduction in both PD and cell viability caused by ethanol. These results suggest that the mucosal irritative action of Japanese sake and white wine is much less pronounced than that of ethanol or whiskey and that the less damaging action of Japanese sake and white wine may be, at least partly, accounted for by the glucose contained in these alcoholic beverages.

Key Words

stomach mucosal irritative action ethanol alcoholic beverage nonalcoholic component glucose 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gottfried EB, Korsten MA, Liever CS: Alcohol-induced gastric and duodenal lesions in man. Am J Gastroenterol 70:587–592, 1978PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Laine L, Weinstein WM: Histology of alcoholic hemorrhagic gastritis: A protective evaluation. Gastroenterology 94:1254–1262, 1988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davenport HW: Ethanol damage to canine oxyntic glandular mucosa. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 126:657–667, 1967Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matsuno K, Tomita K, Okabe S: Wine stimulates gastric acid secretion in isolated rabbit gastric glands via two different pathways. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 16:107–114, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fujii W, Hori H, Yokoo Y, Suwa Y, Nukaya H, Taniyama K: Beer congener stimulates gastrointestinal motility via the muscarinic acethylcholine receptors. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 26:677–681, 2002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Teyssen S, Lenzing T, Gonzalez-Calero G, Korn A, Riepl RL, Singer MV: Alcoholic beberages produced by alcpholic fermentation but not distillation are powerful stimulants of gastric acid secretion in humans. Gut 40:49–56, 1997PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iino T, Nakahama K, Miki W, Kiso Y, Ogawa Y, Kato S, Takeuchi K: Less damaging effect of whiskey in rat stomachs in comparison with pure ethanol. Digestion 64:214–221, 2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iino T, Tashima K, Umeda M, Ogawa Y, Takeeda M, Takada K, Takeuchi K: Effect of ellagic acid on gastric gamage induced in ischemic rat stomachs following ammonia or reperfusion. Life Sci 70:1139–1150, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Takizawa Y: Health-positive effects of the “Sake” of Japan. Food Ingredients 208:905–965, 2003Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Takeuchi K, Okabe S: Role of luminal alkalinization in repair process of ethanol-induced mucosal damage in rat stomach. Dig Dis Sci 28:993–1000, 1983.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kato S, Aihara E, Nakamura A, Hong X, Matsui H, Kohama K, Takeuchi K: Expression of vanilloid receptors in rat gastric epithelial cells: Role in cellular rrotection. Biochem Pharmacol 66:1115–1121, 2003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robert A, Nezamis JE, Lancaster C, Hanchar AJ: Cytoprotection by prostaglandins in rats. Prevention of gastric necrosis produced by alcohol, HCl, NaOH, hypertonic NaCl, and thermal injury. Gastroenterology 77:433–443, 1979Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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, 1983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gharzouli K, Amira S, Gharzouli A, Khennouf S: Gastroprotective effects of honey and glucose–fructose–sucrose–maltose mixture against ethanol-, indomethacin-, and acidified aspirin-induced lesions in the rat. Exp Toxicol Pathol 54:217–221, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamamoto H, Hirata T, Araki H, Kunikata T, Kato S, Takeuchi K: Inducible types of cyclooxygenase and nitric oxide synthase in adaptive cytoprotection in rat stomachs. J Physiol (Paris) 93:405–412, 1999Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ali AT: Prevention of ethanol-induced gastric lesions in rats by natural honey, and its possible mechanism of action. Scand J Gastroenterol 26:281–288, 1991PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mobarok Ali AT, al-Swayeh OA: Natural honey prevents ethanol–induced increased vascular permeability changes in the rat stomach. J Ethnopharmacol 55:231–238, 1997Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cho CH, Ko JK, Tang XL: The differential mechanisms of mild irritants on adaptive cytoprotection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 9:S24–S28, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pencek R, Koyama Y, Lacy D, James FD, Fueger P, Jabbour K, Williams PE: Transporter-mediated absorption is the primary route of entry and is required for passive absorption of intestinal glucose into the blood of conscious dogs. J Nutr 132:1929–1934, 2002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Helliwell PA, Kellett GL: The active and passive components of glucose absorption in rat jejunum under low and high perfusion stress. J Physiol 544:579–589, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nakamura K, Rokutan K, Marui N, Aoike A, Kawai K: Induction of heat shock proteins and their implication in protection against ethanol-induced damage in cultured guinea pig gastric mucosal cells. Gastroenterology 101:161–166, 1994Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akari Nakagiri
    • 1
  • Kazuhiro Fukushima
    • 1
  • Shinichi Kato
    • 1
  • Koji Takeuchi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology and Experimental TherapeuticsKyoto Pharmaceutical UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacology and Experimental TherapeuticsKyoto Pharmaceutical UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations