BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Adenosine is considered to be an important modulator of intestinal motility. This study was undertaken to investigate the role of adenosine in the modulation of contractility in the mouse duodenum and to characterize the adenosine receptor subtypes involved. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: RT-PCR was used to investigate the expression of mRNA encoding for A(1), A(2A), A(2B) and A(3) receptors. Contractile activity was examined in vitro as changes in isometric tension. KEY RESULTS: In mouse duodenum, all four classes of adenosine receptors were expressed, with the A(2B) receptor subtype being confined to the mucosal layer. Adenosine caused relaxation of mouse longitudinal duodenal muscle; this was antagonized by the A(1) receptor antagonist and mimicked by N(6)-cyclopentyladenosine (CPA), selective A(1) agonist. The relaxation induced by A(1) receptor activation was insensitive to tetrodotoxin (TTX) or N(ω)-nitro-l-arginine methyl ester (l-NAME). Adenosine also inhibited cholinergic contractions evoked by neural stimulation, effect reversed by the A(1) receptor antagonist, but not myogenic contractions induced by carbachol. CPA and 2-p-(2-carboxyethyl) phenethylamino-5′-N-ethylcarboxamidoadenosine hydrochloride hydrate (CGS-21680), A(2A) receptor agonist, both inhibited the nerve-evoked cholinergic contractions. l-NAME prevented only the CGS-21680-induced effects. S-(4-Nitrobenzyl)-6-thioinosine, a nucleoside uptake inhibitor, reduced the amplitude of nerve-evoked cholinergic contractions, an effect reversed by an A(2A) receptor antagonist or l-NAME. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Adenosine can negatively regulate mouse duodenal motility either by activating A(1) inhibitory receptors located post-junctionally or controlling neurotransmitter release via A(1) or A(2A) receptors. Both receptors are available for pharmacological recruitment, even if only A(2A) receptors appear to be preferentially stimulated by endogenous adenosine. LINKED ARTICLE: This article is commented on by Antonioli et al., pp. 1577–1579 of this issue. To view this commentary visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01529.
