Journal of Applied Physiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 47: 330-336, 1979;
8750-7587/79 $5.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Niewoehner, D. E.
Right arrow Articles by Montgomery, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Niewoehner, D. E.
Right arrow Articles by Montgomery, M. R.

Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol 47, Issue 2 330-336, Copyright © 1979 by American Physiological Society


ARTICLES

Mechanisms of airway smooth muscle response to isoproterenol and theophylline

D. E. Niewoehner, H. Campe, S. Duane, T. McGowan and M. R. Montgomery

Airway smooth muscle preparations from various sites and species exhibit a range of sensitivities to the same beta-adrenergic agonist. This variability has been attributed to beta-receptor function but the exact mechanism determining the response has not been identified. After first inducing contraction with acetylcholine, we measured isoproterenol and theophylline relaxation responses in five separate airway smooth muscle preparations in vitro. The order of sensitivity was identical for both drugs: guinea pig trachea greater than dog lung strip greater than dog bronchiole greater than rat trachea greater than dog trachea. Because of evidence that both drugs act by increasing adenosine 3',5'-cyclic monophosphate (cAMP) concentrations, we utilized a kinetic model of cAMP metabolism to investigate the possibility that the identical order of sensitivity to both drugs could be explained by a common mechanism. Relaxation responses to both drugs are in accord with known kinetic data. Small differences in the velocity constants of enzymes affecting cAMP metabolism or differences in the relaxation response to the same concentrations of cAMP can fully explain the variable muscle responses to both drugs.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online