Premium
Evidence for the involvement of VPAC1 and VPAC2 receptors in pressure‐induced vasodilatation in rodents
Author(s) -
Fizanne Lionel,
SigaudoRoussel Dominique,
Saumet Jean Louis,
Fromy Bérengère
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
the journal of physiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.802
H-Index - 240
eISSN - 1469-7793
pISSN - 0022-3751
DOI - 10.1113/jphysiol.2003.053835
Subject(s) - vasoactive intestinal peptide , receptor , calcitonin gene related peptide , vasodilation , antagonist , chemistry , blockade , receptor antagonist , medicine , endocrinology , neuropeptide , biology
A transient increase in skin blood flow in response to an innocuous local pressure application, defined as pressure‐induced vasodilatation (PIV), delays the occurrence of ischaemia, suggesting a protective feature against applied pressure. The PIV response depends on capsaicin‐sensitive nerve fibres and calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) has been shown to be involved. In these fibres, CGRP coexists with pituitary adenylate cyclase‐activating polypeptide (PACAP). Three distinct receptors mediate the biological effects of PACAP: VPAC1 and VPAC2 receptors binding with the same affinity for PACAP and vasoactive intestinal peptide and PAC1 receptors showing high selectivity for PACAP. Because the receptors are widely expressed in the nervous system and in the skin, we hypothesized that at least one of them is involved in PIV development. To verify this hypothesis, we used [ d ‐ p ‐Cl‐Phe 6 ,Leu 17 ]‐VIP (nonspecific antagonist of VPAC1/VPAC2 receptors), PG 97‐269 (antagonist of VPAC1 receptors), PACAP(6–38) (antagonist of VPAC2/PAC1 receptors) and Max.d.4 (antagonist of PAC1 receptors) in anaesthetized rodents. The blockade of VPAC1/VPAC2, VPAC1 or VPAC2/PAC1 receptors eliminated the PIV response, whereas PAC1 blockade had no effect, demonstrating an involvement of VPAC1/VPAC2 receptors in PIV development. Moreover, endothelium‐independent and ‐dependent vasodilator responses were unchanged by the VPAC1/VPAC2 antagonist. Thus, the absence of a PIV response following VPAC1/VPAC2 blockade cannot be explained by any dysfunction of the vascular smooth muscle or endothelial vasodilator capacity. The involvement of VPAC1/VPAC2 receptors in the development of PIV seems to imply a series relationship in which each receptor type (CGRP, VPAC1, VPAC2) is necessary for the full transmission of the response.