Effect of putative carcinoid mediators on gastric and small bowel transit in rats and the role of 5-HT receptors

Why is motilin active in some studies with mice, rats, and guinea pigs, but not in others? Implications for functional variability among rodents

The gastrointestinal (GI) hormone motilin helps control human stomach movements during hunger and promotes hunger. Although widely present among mammals, it is generally accepted that in rodents the genes for motilin and/or its receptor have undergone pseudonymization, so exogenous motilin cannot function. However, several publications describe functions of low concentrations of motilin, usually within the GI tract and CNS of mice, rats, and guinea pigs. These animals were from institute‐held stocks, simply described with stock names (e.g., “Sprague–Dawley”) or were inbred strains. It is speculated that variation in source/type of animal introduces genetic variations to promote motilin‐sensitive pathways. Perhaps, in some populations, motilin receptors exist, or a different functionally‐active receptor has a good affinity for motilin (indicating evolutionary pressures to retain motilin functions). The ghrelin receptor has the closest sequence homology, yet in non‐rodents the receptors have a poor affinity for each other's cognate ligand. In rodents, ghrelin may substitute for certain GI functions of motilin, but no good evidence suggests rodent ghrelin receptors are highly responsive to motilin. It remains unknown if motilin has functional relationships with additional bioactive molecules formed from the ghrelin and motilin genes, or if a 5‐TM motilin receptor has influence in rodents (e.g., to dimerize with GPCRs and create different pharmacological profiles). Is the absence/presence of responses to motilin in rodents’ characteristic for systems undergoing gene pseudonymization? What are the consequences of rodent supplier‐dependent variations in motilin sensitivity (or other ligands for receptors undergoing pseudonymization) on gross physiological functions? These are important questions for understanding animal variation.

Effects of the neurokinin-1 antagonist maropitant on canine gastric emptying assessed by radioscintigraphy and breath test

Objective: Delayed gastric emptying is a well-recognised phenomenon in a number of canine disease conditions. Only a limited number of drugs have been reported to have some gastrokinetic effect in the dog. The aim of this study was to investigate prokinetic effects of maropitant. Material and methods: In a cross-over study 24 healthy adult Beagle dogs were randomised to receive either maropitant (2 mg/kg q24 h PO), cisapride (1 mg/kg q12 h PO) or placebo (vitamin- B12, 10 μg/dog q24 h PO) for 7 days with a 7-day washout period between treatments. Gastric emptying was measured simultaneously via 99mTechnetium radioscintigraphy and 13C-sodium acetate breath testing for 6 hours post-feeding. The decrease in radioactive counts in the stomach and the increase in 13CO2 concentration in exhaled breath (measured via gas chromatography) were plotted against time. The area under the curve was determined for each test and the time to 25%, 50% and 75% gastric emptying was calculated for each method. Friedman test was used to compare gastric emptying times. Results: With both methods, no difference for gastric emptying times was observed for any treatment. Conclusion and clinical relevance: Neither maropitant nor cisapride were shown to have an effect on gastric emptying in healthy beagles using radioscintigraphy or breath test when compared to placebo. Consequently, neither drug can be recommended as a gastric prokinetic in dogs.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blind trial of the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant on gastrointestinal motor function in healthy humans

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the role of tachykinins on human gastrointestinal motility and no data exist on the possible effect of an NK1 receptor antagonist.

AIM

To examine the effect of an antiemetic dose of the selective NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant on gastrointestinal propulsion in healthy humans.

METHODS

Twelve healthy volunteers participated in a crossover, double-blind study. In random order, each volunteer had a 125-mg capsule of aprepitant or placebo on day 1 followed by an 80-mg capsule of aprepitant or placebo on days 2-5. Gamma camera imaging was used to measure gastric emptying, small intestinal transit and colonic transit of a radiolabelled, 1600-kJ mixed liquid and solid meal ingested on day 2.

RESULTS

Aprepitant did not change gastric retention at 15 min, gastric half emptying time, gastric mean transit time, time to small intestinal transit of 10%, small intestinal mean transit time or colonic geometric centre after 24, 48 and 72 h.

CONCLUSION

A 125-mg capsule of aprepitant followed by an 80-mg capsule of aprepitant each of the next 2-5 days did not induce major changes in the propulsive function of the gastrointestinal tract in the small number of healthy volunteers investigated.

Prokineticin-2, motilin, ghrelin and metoclopramide: prokinetic utility in mouse stomach and colon

The ability of agents described as gastrointestinal prokinetics (prokineticin-2, [Nle(13)]-motilin, ghrelin), to modulate nerve-mediated contractions of mouse isolated stomach and colon was determined and compared with the prokinetic and 5-HT(4) receptor agonist, metoclopramide. Circular muscle preparations were electrically field-stimulated (EFS) to evoke cholinergically mediated contractions. Metoclopramide 10-100 microM facilitated EFS-evoked contractions in forestomach (n = 5-11, P < 0.05); 1 mM inhibited. Metoclopramide had no effects in colon, apart from 100 microM which reduced contractions. Prokineticin-2 0.001 nM-0.1 microM (n = 3-7) or [Nle(13)]-motilin 0.1 nM-1 microM (n = 4-8) had no effects in forestomach or colon. Ghrelin 0.01-1 microM facilitated EFS-evoked contractions in forestomach (n = 5-7, P < 0.05) but not in colon (n = 5-8). We conclude that ghrelin and metoclopramide facilitate excitatory nerve activity because neither affected inhibitory responses to EFS in the presence of atropine, or contractions to carbachol. Further, prokineticin-2 and [Nle(13)]-motilin are unlikely to exert gastric prokinetic activity in this species, the inactivity of the latter being consistent with an absence of the motilin receptor in rodents.

Tachykinins in the gut. Part I. Expression, release and motor function

The preprotachykinin-A gene-derived peptides substance P and neurokinin (NK) A are expressed in distinct neural pathways of the mammalian gut. When released from intrinsic enteric or extrinsic primary afferent neurons, tachykinins have the potential to influence both nerve and muscle by way of interaction with three different types of tachykinin receptor, termed NK1, NK2 and NK3 receptors. Most prominent among the effects of tachykinins is their excitatory action on gastrointestinal motor activity, which is seen in virtually all regions and layers of the mammalian gut. This action depends not only on a direct activation of the muscle through NK1 and/or NK2 receptors, but also on stimulation of excitatory enteric motor pathways through NK3 and/or NK1 receptors. In addition, tachykinins can inhibit motor activity by stimulating either inhibitory neuronal pathways or interrupting excitatory relays. A synopsis of the available data indicates that endogenous substance P and NKA interact with other enteric transmitters in the physiological control of gastrointestinal motor activity. Derangement of the regulatory roles of tachykinins may be a factor in the gastrointestinal dysmotility associated with infection, inflammation, stress and pain. In a therapeutic perspective, it would seem conceivable, therefore, that tachykinin agonists and antagonists are adjuncts to the treatment of motor disorders that involve pathological disturbances of the gastrointestinal tachykinin system.

Drugs affecting serotonin receptors

A greater understanding of the various serotonin receptor subtypes has led to a clearer appreciation of the role of serotonin in gastrointestinal motility, sensation and secretion. Serotonin is definitely involved in the aetiopathogenesis of cisplatin-induced emesis and carcinoid diarrhoea. The application of serotonergic drugs in clinical therapeutics for gut disturbances is presently dominated by the use of 5-HT3 antagonists for acute chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and the use of substituted benzamides which are 5-HT4 agonists stimulating gut motor function through 5-HT4 neuronal receptors. The best-studied 5-HT4 agonist is cisapride, which has been shown to stimulate motility at several levels of the gut. Cisapride is approved for healing and maintenance treatment of reflux oesophagitis and is used in several countries for the alleviation of symptoms consistent with regional stasis, from dyspepsia to constipation. Carcinoid diarrhoea is a prototypic disease associated with deranged serotonin metabolism, and a rationale for using 5-HT3 or 5-HT4 antagonists is based on the recent appreciation of the important role of impaired gut motor function in carcinoid diarrhoea. In the future, greater understanding of the serotonin receptor subtypes and their role in gut disorders may lead to novel approaches to alleviate increased visceral perception of functional gastrointestinal disorders, to correct changes in colonic capacitance, or to alter gastrointestinal motility that contributes to diarrhoea or constipation. However, at the present time, it must be stressed that these uses are still at an experimental stage and that careful validation and proper controlled studies are still required.