ScienceDirect® Home Skip Main Navigation Links
You have guest access to ScienceDirect. Find out more.
 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
 Quick Search
 Search tips (Opens new window)
    Clear all fields    
 
Font Size: Decrease Font Size  Increase Font Size
 Abstract - selected
Purchase PDF (1042 K)

Article Toolbox
 
 
 
Related Articles in ScienceDirect
View More Related Articles
 
View Record in Scopus
 
doi:10.1016/0014-4835(82)90081-1    
How to Cite or Link Using DOI (Opens New Window)

Copyright © 1982 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

A comparison of the miotic and inflammatory effects of biologically active polypeptides and prostaglandin E2 on the rabbit eye

Purchase the full-text article



References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.

L. Z. Bito, R. R. Nichols and R. A. Baroody

Laboratory of Ocular Physiology, Department of Opthtalmology, Research Division, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, N. Y. 10032, U.S.A.


Received 18 December 1980; 
accepted 6 March 1981. ;
Available online 28 January 2004.

Abstract

The ocular effects of some biologically active peptides were studied and compared to those of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) to determine whether the responses of the eye to trauma, characterized by increased intraocular pressure (IOP), the development of anterior chamber flare and partial miosis, might be mediated by such peptides. One to 2 hr after intravitreal injection of 10 μg of PGE2 into rabbit eyes, ocular hypertension, flare and iridial hyperemia, but only minimal miosis were observed. Maximum miosis developed within 2–3 hr after intravitreal injection of 1·0–100 μg of substance P (SP), SP-octapeptide (SP-8), coherin or eledoisin-related peptide (EDR), while 10–100 μg of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP), somatostatin or bradykinin (BK) yielded only submaximal miosis and angiotensin II, α-MSH and poly-Image -alanine had little or no miotic effect. None of these peptides caused iridial hyperemia or a cellular invasion of the anterior chamber and only high doses (100 μg) of VIP or BK caused significant increases in the protein concentration of the aqueous humor. Miotic doses of SP, SP-8 or EDR caused a significant increase in IOP in some, but not all, experiments. Thus, PGE2 can be regarded as a mediator of the ocular irritative response although it may not account for the miosis that is associated with chemical or surgical trauma. However, this autacoid should not be regarded as the mediator of ocular inflammation since it does not elicit a cellular response. In contrast, some polypeptides, particularly SP, SP-8 and EDR are strong miotics and, at least under some circumstances, can act as effective ocular hypertensives, but these peptides do not reproduce any other signs of ocular irritation or inflammation. It is therefore concluded that none of the peptides studied here could, by itself, be the sole mediator of the initial ocular irritative response although some of them may account for the miosis and contribute to the ocular hypertension associated with this response. A combination of some of these peptides together with PGE2 and/or other PGs may account for all aspects of the ocular irritative response and for most aspects of the ocular inflammatory response.

Author Keywords: prostaglandin E2; substance P; octapeptide; eledoisin related peptide; angiotensin; vasoactive intestinal polypeptide; bradykinin; coherin; somatostatin; α-melanocyte stimulating hormone; eye; intraocular pressure; inflammation; uveitis; aqueous; prostaglandin

Article Outline

• References

 
Home
Browse
My Settings
Alerts
Help
Elsevier.com (Opens new window)
About ScienceDirect  |  Contact Us  |  Information for Advertisers  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.