Premium
An examination of the pharmacology of two substance P antagonists and the evidence for tachykinin receptor subtypes
Author(s) -
Bailey S.J.,
Featherstone R.L.,
Jordan C.C.,
Morton I.K.M.
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
british journal of pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.432
H-Index - 211
eISSN - 1476-5381
pISSN - 0007-1188
DOI - 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1986.tb10159.x
Subject(s) - eledoisin , tachykinin receptor , substance p , medicine , endocrinology , agonist , biology , partial agonist , receptor , neurokinin b , ileum , guinea pig , neuropeptide
1 The potencies of two tachykinin antagonists [D‐Pro 4 , D‐Trp 7,9,10 ]‐SP (4–11) and [D‐Arg 1 , D‐Pro 2 , D‐Trp 7,9 , Leu 11 ]‐SP (1–11) against four tachykinins were examined in a range of smooth muscle preparations, including guinea‐pig ileum and bladder and rat colon muscularis mucosae and duodenum. 2 Parallel shifts in the log dose‐response curves of all the tachykinins tested were observed in all tissues, except in the case of the guinea‐pig bladder where [D‐Pro 4 , D‐Trp 7,9,10 ]‐SP (4–11) was without effect at concentrations up to 32 μM. 3 The slopes of the Schild plots for the two antagonists did not differ significantly from unity, with the exception of [D‐Pro 4 , D‐Trp 7,9,10 ]‐SP (4–11) in the rat duodenum, which may indicate a heterogeneous receptor population in this tissue. The antagonists displayed agonist selectivity in the case of the guinea‐pig ileum where log dose‐response curves to substance P and physalaemin were shifted less than those to eledoisin and kassinin. 4 Rank orders of potency for eledoisin, kassinin, physalaemin and substance P in the five preparations studied allowed classification of the tissues by the predominant receptor type according to the ‘SP‐P’ and ‘SP‐E’ scheme. 5 It is concluded that [D‐Pro 4 , D‐Trp 7,9,10 ]‐SP (4–11) , in particular, displays tissue selectivity that may indicate different receptor populations, but classification of receptor and tissue types on this basis does not fully correspond with classifications based on agonist potencies. Such schemes should therefore be treated with caution at this stage.