1. Volume 119, Issue 5, Pages 1267-1275 (November 2000)
5-HT3 and histamine H1 receptors mediate afferent nerve sensitivity to intestinal anaphylaxis in rats 
Wen Jiang, Martin E. Kreis, Chris Eastwood, Anthony J. Kirkup, Patrick P.A. Humphrey, David Grundy 
Gastroenterology 
Volume 119, Issue 5, Pages (November 2000)
DOI: /gast
Copyright © 2000 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

2. Fig. 1
(A) Mesenteric afferent response to control distention with BSA after antigen challenge in an EA-sensitized rat. The upper trace is intraluminal pressure, below which are the sequential rate histograms of whole-nerve afferent impulse activity displaying the number of impulses in consecutive 1-second bins; 250-millisecond “snapshots” of the raw nerve recording taken during equivalent periods after BSA or EA administration are also shown. Note the comparable mechanosensitive responses during periods of distention but the marked subsequent afferent activity after antigen challenge. (B) Profile of afferent responses to BSA (n = 7) and EA (n = 7) plotted as the mean increase in discharge above baseline in consecutive 10-second epochs against time, with time 0 being the end of the distention period. The response observed in animals pretreated with doxantrazole is also shown (10 mg · kg−1; n = 7), along with the response to antigen in the presence of luminal 1% lidocaine (n = 4).
Gastroenterology  , DOI: ( /gast )
Copyright © 2000 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

3. Fig. 2
Mesenteric afferent responses to intraluminal and systemic antigen challenge. The upper trace is the intraluminal pressure, below which is the sequential rate histogram of whole-nerve afferent firing. Note the marked increase in afferent firing after the first but not the second antigen challenge (EA). The first challenge evokes a motor response represented by the phasic increases in intraluminal pressure. These pressure increases are accompanied by phasic increases in afferent firing superimposed on the markedly augmented afferent firing in the period after the challenge. Systemic antigen evoked a modest but maintained increase in mesenteric afferent firing, despite the absence of a response to the second luminal challenge.
Gastroenterology  , DOI: ( /gast )
Copyright © 2000 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

4. Fig. 3
The mesenteric afferent response to luminal antigen challenge is attenuated by luminal anesthesia. (A) Intraluminal pressure and whole-nerve afferent discharge in response to EA during the application of local anesthetic. Note, first, the small reduction in baseline firing rate after perfusion with 1% lidocaine that recovers rapidly after washout, and second, the robust mechanical response to luminal challenge. (B) Histogram showing the increase in afferent discharge above baseline during distention (mechanical response [□]) and the mean increase in the 3 minutes after the first application of luminal antigen (▩) both in control animals (n = 7) and in animals during mucosal anesthesia (n = 4). Note that the magnitude of the increase in afferent discharge above baseline during distention is unchanged, and the antigen response is significantly reduced (*P < 0.05). The magnitude of the response to systemic antigen is not different in the 2 groups of animals. (C) Profile of the afferent discharge, timed from the end of distention, in response to the second administration of luminal antigen (EA) in control animals and after washout of the local anesthetic in lidocaine-treated animals. Note the similarity in the 2 profiles, which are both attenuated compared with that seen after the first antigenic challenge shown in Figure 1.
Gastroenterology  , DOI: ( /gast )
Copyright © 2000 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions

5. Fig. 4
(A) Effect of alosetron (▩, 30 μg · kg−1; n = 7) and pyrilamine (■, 5 mg · kg−1; n = 7) on mean increase in afferent discharge above baseline after luminal and systemic antigen administration. Note that the response to luminal antigen is significantly reduced by both antagonists, but only pyrilamine significantly affected the response to systemic EA (*P < 0.05). □, Control. (B) Profile of the afferent response to EA in the presence of alosetron (▾) and pyrilamine (□). Note the markedly attenuated response compared with that seen in control animals shown in Figure 1.
Gastroenterology  , DOI: ( /gast )
Copyright © 2000 American Gastroenterological Association Terms and Conditions