Investigation of the prostacyclin (IP) receptor antagonist RO1138452 on isolated blood vessel and platelet preparations

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The current study examined the utility of the recently described prostacyclin (prostanoid IP) receptor antagonist RO1138452 (2-(4-(4-isopropoxybenzyl)-phenylamino) imidazoline) as a tool for classifying prostanoid receptors. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: pA(2) values were determined on isolated smooth muscle and platelet preparations. KEY RESULTS: RO1138452 antagonized relaxation of human pulmonary artery, guinea-pig aorta and rabbit mesenteric artery induced by the selective IP agonist cicaprost. Schild plots had slopes close to unity, generating pA(2) values of 8.20, 8.39 and 8.12 respectively. Non-surmountable antagonism was sometimes found with the higher concentrations of RO1138452, attributable to the EP(3) contractile action of cicaprost. RO1138452 did not block relaxation of guinea-pig trachea induced by the EP(2)-selective agonist butaprost. In contrast, there was a modest inhibition of butaprost-induced relaxation of human pulmonary artery by RO1138452, implying activation of both EP(2) and IP receptors by butaprost. RO1138452 did not affect relaxation induced by PGE(2) (EP(4) agonist) and substance P (NK(1)/endothelium-dependent agonist) in rabbit mesenteric artery. In human and rat platelet-rich plasmas, RO1138452 antagonized cicaprost-induced inhibition of platelet aggregation in a surmountable manner; pA(2) values may have been affected by binding of RO1138452 to plasma protein. RO1138452 did not affect the inhibitory actions of PGD(2) (DP(1) agonist) and NECA (adenosine A(2A) agonist) in human platelets. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The data indicate that RO1138452 is a potent and selective IP receptor antagonist. RO1138452 represents an important addition to our armoury of prostanoid receptor antagonists and a potential clinical agent in situations where prostacyclin has a pathophysiological function

Non-prostanoid prostacyclin mimetics as neuronal stimulants in the rat: comparison of vagus nerve and NANC innervation of the colon

1. The spontaneous activity of the rat isolated colon is suppressed by prostacyclin analogues such as cicaprost (IC(50)=4.0 nM). Activation of prostanoid IP(1)-receptors located on NANC inhibitory neurones is involved. However, several non-prostanoids, which show medium to high IP(1) agonist potency on platelet and vascular preparations, exhibit very weak inhibitory activity on the colon. The aim of the study was to investigate this discrepancy. 2. Firstly, we have demonstrated the very high depolarizing potency of cicaprost on the rat isolated vagus nerve (EC(50)=0.23 nM). Iloprost, taprostene and carbacyclin were 7.9, 66, and 81 fold less potent than cicaprost, indicating the presence of IP(1) as opposed to IP(2)-receptors. Three non-prostanoid prostacyclin mimetics, BMY 45778, BMY 42393 and ONO-1301, although much less potent than cicaprost (195, 990 and 1660 fold respectively), behaved as full agonists on the vagus nerve. 3. On re-investigating the rat colon, we found that BMY 45778 (0.1–3 μM), BMY 42393 (3 μM) and ONO-1301 (3 μM) behaved as specific IP(1) partial agonists, but their actions required 30–60 min to reach steady-state and only slowly reversed on washing. This profile contrasted sharply with the rapid and readily reversible contractions elicited by a related non-prostanoid ONO-AP-324, which is an EP(3)-receptor agonist. 4. The full versus partial agonism of the non-prostanoid prostacyclin mimetics may be explained by the markedly different IP(1) agonist sensitivities of the two rat neuronal preparations. However, the slow kinetics of the non-prostanoids on the NANC system of the colon remain unexplained, and must be taken into account when characterizing neuronal IP-receptors

The Writing of Research Article Introductions

Introductions to research articles (RAs) have become an important site for the analysis of academic writing. However, analysts have apparently not considered whether RA introductions typically include statements of principal findings. In contrast, this issue is often addressed in the manuals and style guides surveyed, most advocating the desirability of announcing principal findings (APFs) in RA introductions. Therefore, a study of actual practice in two leading journals from two different fields (physics and educational psychology) was undertaken. In the Physical Review 45% of the introductions sampled contained APFs (with some increase in percentage over the last 40 years), while in the Journal of Educational Psychology the percentage fell to under 7%. These figures are at variance with the general trend of recommendations in primary and secondary sources. Thus preliminary evidence points to (a) a mismatch between descriptive practice and prescriptive advice and (b) diversity in this rhetorical feature between the two fields.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68973/2/10.1177_0741088387004002004.pd