↓ Skip to main content

Intrinsic cardiac ganglia and acetylcholine are important in the mechanism of ischaemic preconditioning

Overview of attention for article published in Basic Research in Cardiology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Intrinsic cardiac ganglia and acetylcholine are important in the mechanism of ischaemic preconditioning
Published in
Basic Research in Cardiology, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00395-017-0601-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. M. J. Pickard, N. Burke, S. M. Davidson, D. M. Yellon

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the role of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system in the mechanism of classical myocardial ischaemic preconditioning (IPC). Isolated perfused rat hearts were subjected to 35-min regional ischaemia and 60-min reperfusion. IPC was induced as three cycles of 5-min global ischaemia-reperfusion, and provided significant reduction in infarct size (IS/AAR = 14 ± 2% vs control IS/AAR = 48 ± 3%, p < 0.05). Treatment with the ganglionic antagonist, hexamethonium (50 μM), blocked IPC protection (IS/AAR = 37 ± 7%, p < 0.05 vs IPC). Moreover, the muscarinic antagonist, atropine (100 nM), also abrogated IPC-mediated protection (IS/AAR = 40 ± 3%, p < 0.05 vs IPC). This indicates that intrinsic cardiac ganglia remain intact in the Langendorff preparation and are important in the mechanism of IPC. In a second group of experiments, coronary effluent collected following IPC, from ex vivo perfused rat hearts, provided significant cardioprotection when perfused through a naïve isolated rat heart prior to induction of regional ischaemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) (IS/ARR = 19 ± 2, p < 0.05 vs control effluent). This protection was also abrogated by treating the naïve heart with hexamethonium, indicating the humoral trigger of IPC induces protection via an intrinsic neuronal mechanism (IS/AAR = 46 ± 5%, p < 0.05 vs IPC effluent). In addition, a large release in ACh was observed in coronary effluent was observed following IPC (IPCeff = 0.36 ± 0.03 μM vs C eff = 0.04 ± 0.04 μM, n = 4, p < 0.001). Interestingly, however, IPC effluent was not able to significantly protect isolated cardiomyocytes from simulated ischaemia-reperfusion injury (cell death = 45 ± 6%, p = 0.09 vs control effluent). In conclusion, IPC involves activation of the intrinsic cardiac nervous system, leading to release of ACh in the ventricles and induction of protection via activation of muscarinic receptors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Lecturer 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Engineering 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2017.
All research outputs
#18,529,032
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Basic Research in Cardiology
#523
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,861
of 421,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Basic Research in Cardiology
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 421,782 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.