Tachykinin Activation of Muscarinic Inhibition in Canine Small Intestine is Substance P in Nature

  • J. E. T. Fox
  • T. J. McDonald
  • L. Alford
  • F. Kostolanska
Conference paper


Substance P, when injected intra-arterially into the small intestine of the anesthetized dog during phasic activity, produces a dose dependant inhibition of the phasic activity. This inhibitory response was abolished by elimination of field stimulated activity by intra-arterial tetrodotoxin, but reduced by atropine treatment (on activity induced by intra-arterial motilin). This suggested that Substance P acted by releasing several inhibitory transmitters, one of which was probably acetylcholine acting on inhibitory autoreceptors on cholinergic nerves [1]. The identity of the other transmitter/ transmitters is unknown.


Cholinergic Nerve Krebs Ringer Bicarbonate Atropine Treatment Potency Sequence Muscarinic Inhibition 
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.
    Fox JET and Daniel EE (1986) Substance P: a potent inhibitor of the canine small intestine in vivo. Am J Physiol 250:G21–G27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kimura S, Okada M, Sugita Y, Kanazawa I, and Munekata E (1983) Novel neuropeptides, neurokinin α and β, isolated from porcine spinal cord. Proc Jpn Acad 56:101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kangawa K, Minimino N, Fukada A, and Matsuo H (1983) Neuromedin K: a novel mammalian tachkinin identified in porcine spinal cord. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 114:533–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lee CM, Iversen LL, Hanley MR, and Sandberg BEB (1982) The possible existance of multiple receptors for substance P. Naunyn Schmiedeberg’s Arch Pharmacol 318:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buck SH and Burcher E (1966) The tachykinins: a family of peptides with a brood of ‘receptors’. Trends Pharmacol Sci 7 65–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daniel EE, Costa M, Furness JB and Keast JR (1985) Peptide neurons in the canine small intestine J Compar Neurol 237 227–238.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bartho L, Holzer P, Donnerer J and Lembeck F (1982) Evidence for the involvement of substance P in the atropineresistant peristalsis of the guinea-pig ileum. Neurosci Lett 32 69–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fox JET, Daniel EE and Collins SM (1985) Expression of Peptide responses depends upon study enviroment. In: Lewin MJM and Bonfils S (ed) Regulatory Peptides in Digestive, Nervous and Endocrine Systems, INSERM Symposium No 25. Amsterdam New York:Elsvier Science Publishers BV.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. E. T. Fox
    • 1
  • T. J. McDonald
    • 2
  • L. Alford
    • 1
  • F. Kostolanska
    • 1
  1. 1.Program for Study of Smooth Muscle FunctionMcMaster UniversityLondonCanada
  2. 2.Hamilton and Dept. of MedicineUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations