Comparison of neurotransmission with nerve trunk and transmural field stimulation in guinea-pig mesenteric artery

The purinergic neurotransmitter revisited: a single substance or multiple players?

The past half century has witnessed tremendous advances in our understanding of extracellular purinergic signaling pathways. Purinergic neurotransmission, in particular, has emerged as a key contributor in the efficient control mechanisms in the nervous system. The identity of the purine neurotransmitter, however, remains controversial. Identifying it is difficult because purines are present in all cell types, have a large variety of cell sources, and are released via numerous pathways. Moreover, studies on purinergic neurotransmission have relied heavily on indirect measurements of integrated postjunctional responses that do not provide direct information for neurotransmitter identity. This paper discusses experimental support for adenosine 5'-triphosphate (ATP) as a neurotransmitter and recent evidence for possible contribution of other purines, in addition to or instead of ATP, in chemical neurotransmission in the peripheral, enteric and central nervous systems. Sites of release and action of purines in model systems such as vas deferens, blood vessels, urinary bladder and chromaffin cells are discussed. This is preceded by a brief discussion of studies demonstrating storage of purines in synaptic vesicles. We examine recent evidence for cell type targets (e.g., smooth muscle cells, interstitial cells, neurons and glia) for purine neurotransmitters in different systems. This is followed by brief discussion of mechanisms of terminating the action of purine neurotransmitters, including extracellular nucleotide hydrolysis and possible salvage and reuptake in the cell. The significance of direct neurotransmitter release measurements is highlighted. Possibilities for involvement of multiple purines (e.g., ATP, ADP, NAD(+), ADP-ribose, adenosine, and diadenosine polyphosphates) in neurotransmission are considered throughout.

Characterization of non-adrenergic, non-cholinergic inhibitory responses of the isolated guinea-pig trachea: differences between pre- and post-ganglionic nerve stimulation

1 Differences in the mechanism of non-adrenergic, non-cholinergic (NANC) inhibitory responses to preganglionic- and post-ganglionic nerve stimulation were investigated in the guinea-pig isolated trachea. 2 Stimulation of the vagus nerve at frequencies above 4 Hz elicited NANC relaxation of the trachealis muscle. Responses to low frequencies of stimulation (4-8 Hz) were abolished by the nitric oxide (NO) synthase inhibitor L-NOARG (10 microM), while a L-NOARG resistant component was observed at higher stimulus frequencies. The L-NOARG-resistant component of NANC inhibitory responses to higher frequencies of vagus nerve stimulation were significantly attenuated by the proteinase alpha-chymotrypsin (2 U/ml), suggesting that a neuropeptide such as VIP may contribute to NANC responses. 3 When postganglionic nerves were stimulated by electrical field stimulation (EFS), responses were readily elicited at frequencies below 4 Hz. Like responses to vagus nerve stimulation, responses to low frequency (<4 Hz) EFS were abolished by L-NOARG while a L-NOARG-resistant component was apparent at higher stimulus frequencies. 4 The L-NOARG-resistant component of NANC inhibitory responses to EFS was sensitive to alpha-chymotrypsin only if stimuli were delivered in either long trains at a low frequency (4 Hz for 10-30 s) or short trains of high frequency (16 Hz for 2.5-7.5 s). 5 Responses to preganglionic nerve stimulation were approximately 35% of the amplitude of responses to EFS in the same preparations. 6 In conclusion, responses to preganglionic and postganglionic NANC inhibitory nerve stimulation in the guinea-pig trachea differ in maximum amplitude, frequency-response characteristics and the contributions of cotransmitters. We suggest that these differences may be explained by filtering of preganglionic input to postganglionic NANC neurons. These results have implications in all studies where EFS is considered to be representative of physiological stimulation of post-ganglionic nerve stimulation.