Cited by 100Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors StudyIon channel regulation and functionNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

The channel‐blocking action of methonium compounds on rat submandibular ganglion cells

Open access
Gurney, A.M., Rang, H.P.·1984·British Journal of Pharmacology

Abstract

The effects of drugs of the polymethylene bis‐trimethylammonium (methonium) series on the characteristics of the synaptic currents (e.s.cs) recorded from voltage‐clamped rat submandibular ganglion cells have been studied. The drugs studied were from C4 to C10 (decamethonium). All of the drugs except C4 shortened the initial decay phase of the e.s.c.; C9 and C10 produced an additional slowly decaying component. These effects were interpreted in terms of an open channel block mechanism, the calculated rate constants for association with the open channel at — 80 mV being fairly similar (5.9 × 10 6 to 18.1 × 10 6m−1 s−1) for all of the compounds except C4, which had no effect on the e.s.c. decay. All of the compounds produced use‐dependent block when tested with short trains of stimuli at 10 Hz, or with trains of ionophoretic pulses of acetylcholine, consistent with their channel blocking property. Tubocurarine had a similar effect, but not trimetaphan or mecamylamine. Recovery from use‐dependent block with short chain methonium compounds, up to C8, was very slow in the absence of agonist, being incomplete even after several minutes. With C9 or C10 or tubocurarine, recovery from use‐dependent block was complete within a few seconds. With C6 recovery in the absence of agonist was unaffected by membrane potential, but could be accelerated by applying acetylcholine with the cell depolarized to — 40 mV. This persistent block was ascribed to the ability of the blocking molecule to become trapped by closure of the channel. With C9 and C10 it is assumed that their presence inhibits channel closure, so they can escape without the help of agonist. When use‐dependent block is avoided by leaving the ganglion unstimulated during equilibration with the blocking drug, the first e.s.c. elicited shows no appreciable reduction of amplitude, though with C6, C7 or C8 subsequent responses elicited at 0.1 Hz become progressively more blocked. Even at 1 m m, C6 does not prevent acetylcholine from opening ionic channels. It is concluded that all of the effects on e.s.c. amplitude can be interpreted in terms of channel block, there being no evidence of any receptor blocking action.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1984.tb10801.x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. BLACKMAN, J.G. (1959). The pharmacology of depressor bases. Ph.D. Thesis. University of New Zealand.
  2. GURNEY, A.M. (1982); Effects of ganglion blocking drugs on rat submandibular ganglion cells. Ph.D Thesis, Uni- versity ofLondon.
  3. KHARKEVICH, D.A. (1967). Ganglion-Blocking and Ganglion-StimulatingAgents. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gurney, A. M., & Rang, H. P.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
British Journal of Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1984-07
Volume
82
Issue
3
Pages
623-642
ISSN
  • 0007-1188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5381
OpenAlex
W4244797182
Cited by
100
References
44
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Ion channel regulation and function
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
methonium, decamethonium, channel block, submandibular ganglion, synaptic currents, acetylcholine, use-dependent block, recovery from block, open channel block, channel closure, tubocurarine, trimetaphan, mecamylamine, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, voltage clamp
MeSH terms
Acetylcholine, Animals, Electrophysiology, Female, Ganglia, Parasympathetic, Ganglionic Blockers, Kinetics, Male, Membrane Potentials, Bis-Trimethylammonium Compounds, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review