Vagotomy pp 24-32 | Cite as

The Effect of Selective Proximal Vagotomy on Parietal Cells in Man

  • G. E. Holle


The fine structure of the various cell types in the gastric mucosa is fundamentally similar in a wide range of animal species. The principal differences among species appear to be in the relative numbers of the cell types and in their regional distribution [15, 26]. For example, in the rat the ratio of chief cell/parietal cell is 2/1 [5], for cebus spec., whose gastric mucosa most closely resembles that of man, the ratio is 4/1 [20]. The ratio of chief cell + mucous neck cell to parietal cell averages 7/1 for cebus spec., in personal examinations on man, it is 2,6/1 on the average [13, 14]. The total number of parietal cells was found in a number of species to be a function of cell count per unit area, fundic mucosal surface and mucosa thickness [2]. The figures fluctuate among the most commonly used laboratory animals by 4 digits. The individual fluctuations in man range between 0,2 to 2,6 x 109 [2, 10]. The large individual fluctuations in the total cell numbers are caused in part by individual fluctuations in the size of the fundic glands bearing mucosa and in part also by very greatly different numbers of cells per unit area with in some cases great fluctuations in the mucosa thickness. But no relationship has been observed between stomach size, age or body size [10]. There exist highly significant differences among the individual samples in PC distribution per unit area [1, 23, 2, 10], in man up to sevenfold [30]. But no significant regional differences exist between the arbitrarily demarcated zones in the fundic-body area of the same individuum except for the slight diminution of the PC numbers on the lesser curvature [19]. This represents a prerequisite for the usability of bioptic material, which has been proved to be just as valuable in this respect as material from resected stomachs [21].


Gastric Mucosa Duodenal Ulcer Parietal Cell Glandular Cell Chief Cell 
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.
    Berger, E. H.: The Distribution of Parietal Cells in the Stomach: A Histotopographic Study. Amer. J. Anat. 54, 87 (1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Card, W. J., Marks, J. N.: The Relationship between the Acid Output of the Stomach Following Maximal Histamine Stimulation and the Parietal Cell Mass. Clin. Sci. 19, 147 (1960)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlier, E. W.: Contribution to the Histology of the Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). J. Anat. Physiol. (Lond.) 27, 85–111 (1893)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Corpron, R. E.: The Ultrastructure of the Gastric Mucosa in Normal and Hypophysectomized Rats. Amer. J. Anat. 118, 53–90 (1966)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crean, G. P., Marshall, M. W., Rumsey, R. D. E.: Parietal Cell Hyperplasia induced by the Administration of Pentagastrin to Rats. Gastroenterology 57, 147–155 (1969)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crean, G. P., Rumsey, R. D. E.: Hyperplasia of the Gastric Mucosa during Pregnancy and Lactation in the Rat. J. Physiol. 215, 181–197 (1971)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    . Crean, G. P., Hogg, D. F., Rumsey, R. D. E.: Hyperplasia of the Gastric Mucosa produced by Duodenal Obstruction. Gastroenterology 56, 193–199 (1969)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crean, G. P.: The Effects of Hydrocortisone and ACTH on the Gastric Mucosa of the Rat. Scand. J. Gastroent. 2, 305–310 (1967)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cox, A. J., Barnes, V. R.: Experimental Hyperplasia of the Stomach Mucosa. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol, and Med. 60, 118–120 (1945)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cox, A. J.: Stomach Size and its Relation to Chronic Peptic Ulcer. Arch. path. 54 407 (1952)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein, H. J., Jirmann, V. W., Eder, M.: Belegzellenhyperplasie bei Ratten nach Pentagastrinstimulierung. Gastroenterologie 7,3, 171–173, (1969)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hogben, C. A. M., Woodward, Ph. A., Stiel, A. J., Kent, Th. H.: Quantitative Histology of the Gastric Mucosa: Man, Dog, Cat, Quinea Pig and Frog (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holle, G., Schauer, A., Fellner, K.: On the Effect of Selective Proximal Vagotomy on the Parietal Cells in Duodenal Ulcers. Chir. Gastroent. 5, Nr. 3, 310–317 (1971)Google Scholar
  14. 1.
    . Holle, G., Fellner, K., Schauer, A.: On the Effect of Selective Proximal Vagotomy on the Parietal Cells in Gastric Ulcers. Chir. Gastroent. 7, 1 (1973)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ito, S, Winchester, R. J.: The Fine Structure of the Gastric Mucosa in the Rat. J. Cell. Biol. 16, 541–577(1963)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lipkin, M., Cherlock, P., Bell, B.: Cell Proliferation Kinetics in the Gastrointestinal Tract of Man. II. Cell Renewal in Stomach, Ileum, Colon and Rectum. Gastroenterology 45, 6, 721–729(1963)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marks, J. N., Komarov, S. A., Shay, H.: Acid Secretory Responses to Histamine and the Parietal Cell Mass in Dog. Amer. J. Physiol. 195, 2, 528–534 (1958)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sanders, St.: Histological and Histochemical Examination of the Gastric Mucosa in Rats Following Vagotomy. Acta Chir. Scand. 129, 81–85 (1965)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meissner, W. A.: Distribution of Parietal Cells in Gastric Disease. Arch. Pathol. 44, 261 (1947)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Müller, U.: Histotopographische Untersuchungen an der Magenschleimhaut von Tupaia glis und einigen Neuweltaffen. Anat. Anz. Bd. 129, 239–275 (1971)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Myren, J., Skrede, J., Torgersen, O.: Gastric Secretion and Parietal Cells. Gastroenterologia 99, 319–326(1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nachlas, M. M.: In: Histochemistry Theoretical and Applied (Pears, A. O. E.), p. 910. London: J. and A. Churchill 1960Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oi, M., Hoshiko, S., Funatsu, S.: A Study on the Distribution of Parietal Cells in Human Stomach. Jikei Med. J. 5, 10–66 (1958)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pette, D., Klingenberg, M., Biicher, Th.: Comparable and Specific Proportions in the Mitochondrial Enzyme Activity. Pattern. Biochem. Biophys. Research Comm. 7, 425 (1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pirone, R.: Recherches sur la Fonction Sécrétaire des Cellules Glandulaires Gastriques. Z. Physiol. 4, 62–78(1904)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ragins, H., Dittbrenner, M., Diaz, J.: Comparative Histochemistry of the Gastric Mucosa: A Survey of the Common Laboratory Animals and Man. Anat. Rec. 150, 179–194 (1964)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reagins, H., Wincze, F., Liu, S. M., Dittberger, M.: The Origin and Survival of Gastric Parietal Cells in the Mouse. Anat. Rec. 162, 99–110(1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosa, C. B., Tsou, K. C.: Use of the Tetrazolium Compounds in Oxydative Enzyme Histoand Cytochemistry. Nature 12, 192 (1961)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Salamon, A.: Untersuchung der Sekretorischen Innervation der Magenschleimhaut mittels Kernvariationsstatistik. Acta morphol. Acad. Sc. Hung. 5, 1–9 (1955a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tongen, L. A.: The Quantitative Relationship between Parietal Cells and Gastric Acidity. Surgery 28, 6, 1009(1950)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wolff, H.: Entwicklungsgeschichtliche histochemische und experimentelle Untersuchungen an den Brunnerschen Drüsen des Kaninchens. Z. Zellforschung 53, 829–856 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1974

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. E. Holle

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations