Premium
Coeliac haemodynamic effects of endothelin‐1, endothelin‐3, proendothelin‐1 [1–38] and proendothelin‐3 [1–41] in conscious rats
Author(s) -
Gardiner S.M.,
Kemp P.A.,
Compton A.M.,
Bennett T.
Publication year - 1992
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.1476-5381.1992.tb14360.x
Subject(s) - vasoconstriction , endocrinology , medicine , hemodynamics , endothelin receptor , endothelin 1 , vasodilation , endothelins , receptor
1 Conscious, chronically‐instrumented, Long Evans rats were given bolus doses of endothelin‐1, endothelin‐3 (both at 0.01 and 0.1 nmol kg −1 ), proendothelin‐1 [1–38] and proendothelin‐3 [1–41] (both 0.1 and 1 nmol kg −1 ) in order to compare their effects on coeliac haemodynamics, because it has been reported that, in conscious dogs, endothelin‐1 has paradoxical, prolonged hyperaemic vasodilator effects in this vascular bed. Measurements were made also of mesenteric and hindquarters haemodynamics for comparison. In a separate experiment, endothelin‐1 (0.1 nmol kg −1 ) was given before and 20 min after the onset of an infusion of mecamylamine (50 μmol kg h −1 ) to ensure that the responses measured were not confounded by rapid reflex changes in autonomic activity. 2 None of the peptides caused any increases in coeliac flow or any sustained rises in coeliac vascular conductance, although such changes were clear‐cut in the hindquarters vascular bed following the higher dose of endothelin‐1 and endothelin‐3. In animals treated with mecamylamine the regional haemodynamic effects of the higher dose endothelin‐1 were not different from those in animals with intact baroreflexes. 3 Although the lower dose of both endothelin‐1 and endothelin‐3 caused less marked coeliac than mesenteric vasoconstriction, this difference was not apparent with the higher dose of the peptides, or with proendothelin‐1 [1–38]. However, proendothelin‐3 [1–41] had less marked coeliac and hindquarters vasoconstrictor effects than proendothelin‐1 [1–38], in spite of both peptides causing similar changes in mesenteric haemodynamics. These differences could have been due to regional differences in the conversion of proendothelin‐1 [1–38] and proendothelin‐3 [1–41] to endothelin‐1 and endothelin‐3, respectively. Our findings contradict the proposition that exogenous proendothelin‐3[1–41] is not converted into endothelin‐3 in vivo . 4 Since, in contrast to endothelin‐1 and endothelin‐3, proendothelin‐1 [1–38] and proendothelin‐3 [1–41] caused only small hindquarters vasodilatations, but large vasoconstrictions, it is feasible that the vasodilator responses to exogenous endothelin‐1 and endothelin‐3 are pharmacological phenomena, and that, in vivo , the production of endothelins from proendothelins exerts widespread vasoconstrictor effects.