4.2 Article

Evidence for prostaglandin E2 receptor expression in the intramural ganglia of the guinea pig urinary bladder

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL NEUROANATOMY
卷 64-65, 期 -, 页码 43-47

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2015.03.001

关键词

Bladder; Ganglion; Prostaglandin; EP1; EP2; Neuromodulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Intramural ganglia are present in the bladder wall of several species including human, pig, and guinea-pig. It has been suggested that there is a network of intramural ganglia in the bladder of these species that may be part of a motor-sensory system and receive afferent input. Prostaglandins (PG) have been suggested to play a role in this afferent signalling mechanism. To investigate the distribution of the prostaglandin E-2 receptors EP1 and EP2 in and around intramural ganglia of the guinea pig, bladders of 6 guinea pigs were dissected, and processed for immunohistochemistry. Sections were examined for prostaglandin E-2 receptor EP1- and EP2-immuno-reactivity and co-stained for vimentin, a marker for interstitial cells (IC) and cyclo-oxygenase I (COX I), the enzyme responsible for PG synthesis. Immunoreactivities for EP1 and EP2 were found in intramural ganglion cells. These cells were observed in between muscle bundles and on, or close to the serosal surface of the bladder. Furthermore, COX I was present in interstitial cells close to ganglion cells, indicating the possibility of a local synthesis of prostaglandins near the ganglia. The co-staining of EP1 or EP2 with vimentin showed that processes of interstitial cells run through the ganglia, often encircling or ensheathing cells. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a close relationship between the intramural ganglia and the network of interstitial cells in the muscular layers of the bladder. EP1 and EP2 receptors are expressed on the ganglia and this arrangement suggests that intramural ganglia are involved in (pre)processing afferent information. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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