4.3 Article

Validation of 13C-acetic acid breath test by measuring effects of loperamide, morphine, mosapride, and itopride on gastric emptying in mice

期刊

BIOLOGICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL BULLETIN
卷 31, 期 10, 页码 1917-1922

出版社

PHARMACEUTICAL SOC JAPAN
DOI: 10.1248/bpb.31.1917

关键词

gastric emptying; breath test; C-13-acetic acid; mouse; mosapride; loperamide

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports. Science and Technology of Japan [18790126, 18790127, 19590156]
  2. Uehara Memorial Foundation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [19590156, 18790127, 18790126] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several methods are used to evaluate gastric motility in rodents, but they all have technical limitations. Recent technical developments enable a convenient method to evaluate gastric motility. The C-13-acetic acid breath test in rodents is a non-invasive and repeatable method that can be used without physical restraints. The present study aimed to validate the C-13-acetic acid breath test by measuring the effects of loperamide, morphine, mosapride. and itopride on gastric emptying in mice. Loperamide (1-10 mg/kg) and morphine (1.25-10 mg/kg) slowed gastric emptying and decreased the maximum concentration (C-max) and area under the curve (AUC(90 min)) value in a dose-dependent manner. Mosapride (0.2-5 mg/kg) accelerated gastric emptying and increased C-max value. Mosapride (20 mg/kg) did not accelerate gastric emptying on the C-13-breath test. Itopride (30 mg/kg, per os) significantly accelerated gastric emptying compared with the vehicle group. In a comparison with the conventional phenol red test, there vas a correlation between the C-max value of breath test and gastric emptying (%) of phenol red tests in treatment with loperamide or mosapride. These results indicate that t C-13-acetic acid breath test is an accurate, noninvasive, and simple method For monitoring gastric emptying in mice. This method is useful to assess the effect of drugs and gut function pharmacologically.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据