Pre- and Postsynaptic Effects of Muscarinic Antagonists in the Isolated Guinea Pig Ileum

  • H. Kilbinger
  • W. Weiler
  • I. Wessler
Part of the Advances in Behavioral Biology book series (ABBI, volume 30)


Several compounds have been claimed to differentiate between subtypes of muscarinic receptors (2). In the experiments described in this chapter we have studied in the guinea-pig ileum whether the presynaptic muscarinic receptors of the cholinergic nerves differ from the postsynaptic muscarinic receptors of the longitudinal muscle in their affinities for several muscarinic antagonists (methylatropine; trihexyphenidyl; clozapine; DAMP). Inhibition by oxotremorine of the evoked release of acetylcholine (ACh) was used as a parameter of presynaptic activity, and the increase by oxotremorine of smooth muscle tension as a postsynaptic parameter. The affinity constants (pA2 values) of the antagonists were determined by constructing complete concentration response curves for pre- and postsynaptic effects of oxotremorine, in the absence and presence of different concentrations of the respective antagonist. Differences in the affinities of a given antagonist to either pre- or postsynaptic receptors should result in different pre- and postsynaptic pA2 values.


Muscarinic Receptor Longitudinal Muscle Muscarinic Agonist Muscarinic Antagonist Postsynaptic Effect 
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.
    Abramson, F.B., Barlow, R.B., Franks, F.M. and Pearson, J.D.M. (1974): Brit. J. Pharmacol. 51: 81–93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birdsall, N.J.M. and Hulme, E.C. (1983): Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 4: 459–463.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Documenta Geigy, Wissenschaftliche Tabellen (1969): 7th edition, Ciba-Geigy Ltd., Basel, p. 178, equation (672).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fozard, J.R. and Muscholl, E. (1972): Brit. J. Pharmacol. 45: 616–629.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuder, H., Meiser, C., Wormstall, H. and Muscholl, E. (1981): Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharmacol. 316: 31–37.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furchgott, R.F. (1972): In Handbook of Exp. Pharmacol Vol. 33., (eds) H. Blaschko and E. Muscholl, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 283–335.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halim, S., Kilbinger, H. and Wessler, I. (1982): Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 17 (Suppl. 72): 87–93.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilbinger, H. (1984): Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 5: 103–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kilbinger, H. and Wessler, I. (1980): Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharmacol. 314: 259–266.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kilbinger, H. and Kruel, R. (1981): Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharmacol. 316: 131–134.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sachs, L. (1969): Statistische Auswertungsmethoden ( 2. Aufl.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Kilbinger
    • 1
  • W. Weiler
    • 1
  • I. Wessler
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmakologisches InstitutUniversität MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations