Usage Information
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1978;61(3):781-789. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI108992.
Abstract
The effect of efferent, parasympathetic stimulation upon pancreatic polypeptide (PP) secretion was studied in three ways: (a) Plasma PP concentrations increased in response to insulin-induced hypoglycemia in both normal subjects, from 11 pM (9.5-12.5) to 136 pM (118-147), n = 8 (median and interquartile range) and in duodenal ulcer patients, from 33 pM (21-52) to 213 pM (157-233), n = 7. The PP response to hypoglycemia was diminished by atropine in normal subjects (P < 0.005) and completely abolished by vagotomy in the duodenal ulcer patients. (b) Electrical stimulation, 8 Hz, of the vagal nerves in anesthetized pigs induced an increase in portal PP concentrations within 30 s from 32 pM (28-39) to 285 pM (248-294), n = 12. Minimal stimulatory frequency was 0.5 Hz and maximal stimulatory frequency 8-12 Hz. Atropine inhibited the PP response to electrical stimulation. Median inhibition with 0.5 mg of atropine/kg body wt was 74%, range 31-90%, n = 6. The response was eliminated by hexamethonium. Adrenergic alpha and beta blockade did not influence the release of PP in response to vagal stimulation. (c) Acetylcholine stimulated, in a dose-dependent manner, the secretion of PP from the isolated perfused porcine pancreas, half-maximal effective dose being 0.19 μM; maximal PP output in response to 5 min stimulation was 228 pmol, range 140-342 pmol, n = 5. Atropine completely abolished this response.
Authors
T. W. Schwartz, J. J. Holst, J. Fahrenkrug, S. Lindkær Jensen, O. V. Nielsen, J. F. Rehfeld, O. B. Schaffalitzky de Muckadell, F. Stadil
Usage data is cumulative from April 2022 through April 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 297 | 0 |
| 46 | 8 | |
| Scanned page | 187 | 10 |
| Citation downloads | 25 | 0 |
| Totals | 555 | 18 |
| Total Views | 573 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
Copyright © 2023 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)