1,720,978 research outputs found

    Mucus and pepsin role in gastric damage prevention by H2-receptor antagonists and antiulcer drugs

    No full text
    The effects of cimetidine and ranitidine, alone or combined with sulglycotide or carbenoxolone, and those of 16,16-dimethyl prostaglandin E2 were investigated on mucosal lesions induced in pylorus-ligated rats. The drugs were administered orally after pylorus ligation; 3 hr later the animals were killed, the stomachs removed and examined for the presence of mucosal lesions. Volume, pH, total acidity, pepsin, free and barrier mucus were determined. H2-antagonists both at nonantisecretory and antisecretory doses failed to prevent gastric mucosal lesions or to affect significantly mucus and pepsin. Sulglycotide and carbenoxolone inhibited pepsin secretion, the latter enhanced barrier mucus and both reduced lesion severity. A nearly complete prevention of mucosal damage was observed after anti-secretory doses of cimetidine plus sulglycotide or carbenoxolone. Data obtained compared with those of 16,16-dimethyl prostaglandin E2 suggest that mucus and pepsin might have a partial role in ulcer preventio

    Influence of urea-equivalent groups in position 5 of 2-amino, 2-(1-aminoethylidenamino) and 2-guanidino thiazole derivatives on H2-receptor antagonist activity in gastric fistula cat.

    No full text
    A series of thiazole derivatives, in which a side-chain with different urea-equivalent groups was introduced in position 5 of the heterocycle, have been tested as inhibitors of dimaprit-induced gastric acid and pepsin secretion in the gastric fistula cat. By comparing the in vivo and the previously reported in vitro activity of these compounds, we can note a very close parallelism not only in the quality of their action but also in the estimates of pA2 values. These data support an interdependence between the molecular substructures and the affinity for the H2-receptor

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore