Water and enzyme secretion are tightly coupled in pancreatic secretion stimulated by food or CCK-58 but not by CCK-8

M. Yamamoto,1 J. R. Reeve, Jr.,2 D. A. Keire,2 and G. M. Green1

1Department of Physiology, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, Texas; 2Center for Ulcer Research and Education: Digestive Diseases Research Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, and Digestive Diseases Division, University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California

Submitted 8 September 2003 ; accepted in final form 3 November 2004


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Pancreatic secretion of protein, water, chloride, and bicarbonate under basal conditions and in response to intravenous and intraduodenal stimuli were studied in awake rats fully recovered from surgery. During the basal phase of pancreatic secretion, protein output and water output were weakly correlated or uncorrelated, consistent with separate regulation and distinct cellular origin of enzyme (acinar cells) and water (duct cells), referred to as the two-component paradigm of pancreatic secretion. When pancreatic secretion was stimulated physiologically, water and protein output abruptly became strongly and significantly correlated, suggesting that protein secretion and water secretion are tightly coupled or that protein secretion is dependent on water secretion. The apparent function of this coupling is to resist or prevent increases in protein concentration as protein output increases. This pattern of secretion was reproduced by intravenous infusion of the CCK-58 form of cholecystokinin, which strongly stimulates pancreatic water and chloride secretion, but not by CCK-8, which only weakly stimulates water and chloride secretion in a non-dose-dependent manner. The remarkably tight association of water and protein secretion in food-stimulated and CCK-58-stimulated pancreatic secretion is consistent with a single cell type as the origin of both water and enzyme secretion, i.e., the acinar cell, and is not consistent with the two-component paradigm of pancreatic secretion. Because CCK-58 is the only detectable endocrine form of cholecystokinin in the rat and its bioactivity pattern is markedly and qualitatively different from CCK-8, actions previously recorded for CCK-8 should be reexamined.

cholecystokinin; secretin; electrolyte secretion; bicarbonate secretion; chloride secretion


THE GASTROINTESTINAL HORMONE cholecystokinin is widely reported to exist in multiple molecular forms in a variety of species, including humans. Some of the reported differences in potency or efficacy among forms have been shown to be due to variable tendencies for peptides to be lost from solution (59). In addition, because the CCK-58 form accounts for virtually all the cholecystokinin immunoreactivity in the circulation of the rat (48), questions regarding the physiological roles of other forms of cholecystokinin in the circulation may be moot. Furthermore, several reports have shown that CCK-58 differed qualitatively in bioactivity compared with shorter forms (18, 64). With the successful synthesis of rat sulfated CCK-58, we were able to definitively demonstrate a different pattern of bioactivity between CCK-8 and CCK-58 in the anesthetized rat; CCK-58 caused a marked increase in the volume of bile-pancreatic secretion compared with CCK-8, whereas enzyme (amylase) output was unchanged (49).

These experiments had some limitations. For example, because pancreatic juice and bile were not collected separately in the latter study, we could not be certain that the increased volume of bile-pancreatic juice was due to stimulation of pancreatic juice output. In addition, the study was conducted in acutely operated, anesthetized rats, which markedly affects both quantitative and qualitative characteristics of pancreatic secretion (38, 44). To address these issues, we carried out studies to characterize the pancreatic secretion of protein, water, bicarbonate, and chloride in response to CCK-8 and CCK-58 in conscious rats fully recovered from surgery. The results show that CCK-58 stimulates a remarkably different pattern of pancreatic secretion compared with CCK-8, which reveals a tight linkage in secretion between the enzyme and aqueous components of pancreatic juice, the significance of which has not been fully appreciated.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Materials

Sulfated CCK-58 and secretin (rat sequences) were synthesized at the University of California, Los Angeles Peptide Synthesis Facility and infused intravenously in a vehicle of 0.1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) containing 0.15 M NaCl. Rat CCK-58 was synthesized using an Applied Biosystem peptide synthesizer (Foster City, CA) and purified to >90% as determined by high-performance capillary electrophoresis. The synthesis of rat CCK-58 is described in detail elsewhere (49). Rat secretin was synthesized and characterized as previously described for canine secretin and analogs (58). CCK-8 was purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO). Rabbit secretin antiserum (antiserum R402) was a generous gift from Dr. Travis Solomon. The CCK-A receptor antagonist MK-329 was obtained from ML Laboratories PLC (Warrington, UK). The synthetic protease inhibitor camostat (FOY-305) was obtained from Ono Pharmaceutical (Osaka, Japan). Sodium taurocholate was purchased from Sigma. Purified bovine trypsin and purified casein (Hammersten) were purchased from Worthington Biochemical (Freehold, NJ).

Animal Preparation

Adult male Wistar rats were obtained from Harlan Sprague Dawley (Indianapolis, IN) and weighed between 270–300 g when used in the pancreatic secretion studies. Rats were anesthetized with isoflurane and prepared with Silastic cannulas (12 in. long, 0.020 in. ID x 0.037 in. OD), which drained pancreatic juice and bile, and with two additional cannulas (12 in. long, 0.023 in. ID x 0.042 in. OD) in the duodenum, 0.5–1 cm proximal to the ampulla of Vater. Rats were also prepared with an external jugular vein cannula for infusion of peptides. Cannulas from the abdominal cavity were routed under the skin to exit on the back. After closure, rats were placed in Bollman-type restraint cages modified to minimize the degree of restraint. Rats were fed laboratory chow before surgery, during recovery, and between experiments. During recovery and between experiments, pancreatic juice and bile were collected and continuously returned via the intestinal cannulas to the duodenum by a servomechanism (22). The Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio approved all animal studies.

Assays

Experiments on pancreatic secretory responses were performed on days 4–7 postoperatively. Pure pancreatic juice was collected at 30-min intervals. The volume of pancreatic juice was measured to the nearest 0.005 µl using a Hamilton syringe, a 10-µl sample was taken for protein assay, and two 25-µl samples were taken for chloride and bicarbonate assays. Protein output in pancreatic juice was estimated by determining optical density at 280 nm of samples diluted 1:600 in 0.05 M tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane (Tris) buffer (pH 7.8). Purified bovine trypsinogen (Worthington) was used as a standard. Chloride concentration in pancreatic fluid was determined using the method of Shales and Shales (54), in which pancreatic juice samples (25 µl) are titrated with 0.02 M Hg(NO3)2 and compared with standard chloride ion (NaCl) solutions. Bicarbonate concentration was determined by acidification of samples with HCl immediately after collection followed by back-titration using the DST800 multititration system (Radiometer, Copenhagen, Denmark).

Collection of Pancreatic Secretion

In most previous studies on pancreatic secretion in conscious rats, we collected all the pancreatic juice and bile, retained only 10 µl for protein determination, and returned the remainder of pancreatic juice and all bile to the duodenum. Because we planned to measure several additional components in the present studies, i.e., bicarbonate and chloride concentrations as well as protein concentration, it was necessary to retain a larger volume of pancreatic juice for assay (total of 60 µl out of an average 30-min collection of 200–400 µl). Therefore, to prevent stimulation of cholecystokinin release that might occur with diversion of 60 µl of pancreatic juice, we infused purified bovine trypsin (10 mg/ml in 0.15 M NaCl containing 0.01 N HCl) via one duodenal cannula. Because we also retained all bile secreted, we infused sodium taurocholate (40 µmol/ml in 0.1 M sodium bicarbonate) via the second intraduodenal cannula to prevent interruption of the enterohepatic cycle. This enabled diversion of all pancreatic juice for multiple assays while preventing the spontaneous stimulation of cholecystokinin release and pancreatic secretion that is caused by diversion of bile and pancreatic juice from the duodenum (20). Neither CCK-8 nor CCK-58 affected bile secretion.

Experimental Protocols

Effect of intravenous infusion of CCK-8 and CCK-58 on pancreatic protein, fluid, and electrolyte secretion. To determine the efficacy and potency of CCK-58 compared with that of CCK-8, we monitored basal secretion every 30 min for 1.5 h during intravenous vehicle infusion (0.1% BSA in 0.15 M NaCl) and for 3 h during peptide infusion at five dose rates: 62.5, 125, 250, 500, and 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1. All intravenous solutions were infused at 1 ml/h via syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus).

Effect of atropine and CCK-A receptor antagonist on pancreatic secretion stimulated by CCK-58. To investigate the role of cholinergic pathways on pancreatic secretion stimulated by CCK-58, we infused atropine continuously at 100 µg·kg–1·h–1 iv beginning 1 h before peptide infusion and continuing during the 3-h period of peptide infusion. To examine the role of CCK-A receptors in the pancreatic secretory response to CCK-58, we infused MK-329 or vehicle (dimethyl sulfoxide-Tween 80-saline 1:1:3) at 1 mg·kg–1·h–1 iv starting 1 h before and continuing during infusion of cholecystokinin peptides.

Effect of secretin on pancreatic secretion and role of secretin in pancreatic fluid secretion stimulated by CCK-58. To investigate the mechanism by which CCK-58 stimulates pancreatic water secretion, we compared the pattern of pancreatic fluid and electrolyte secretion stimulated by rat secretin to that stimulated by CCK-58 and determined the effect of secretin antiserum on CCK-58-stimulated pancreatic fluid and electrolyte secretion. To determine a minimal but adequate dose of anti-secretin serum for immunoneutralization experiments, we infused rat secretin at a dose previously shown to cause greater than physiological blood levels of secretin in the rat. According to Chey and colleagues (7, 34, 51), intravenous infusion of synthetic secretin at 2.5 or 5.0 pmol·kg–1·h–1 produces physiological blood levels of secretin, whereas a dose of 10 pmol·kg–1·h–1 is pharmacological. Therefore, to ensure that we infused sufficient anti-secretin serum to immunoneutralize all circulating endogenous secretin, we determined the amount of the secretin antiserum necessary to abolish the pancreatic volume and bicarbonate secretory response to synthetic rat secretin infused at the pharmacological dose of 10 pmol·kg–1·h–1 iv. Each rat was studied twice, once on the fourth postoperative day (normal rabbit serum, NRS) and once on the fifth postoperative day (secretin antiserum). Secretin antiserum (antiserum R402) administered as a 100-µl iv bolus 60 min before secretin infusion started abolished the pancreatic volume and bicarbonate secretory response to 10 pmol·kg–1·h–1 of synthetic rat secretin (infused intravenously with NRS) (Fig. 1). Therefore, the effect of secretin antiserum on CCK-58-stimulated pancreatic secretion was determined by injecting 0.10 ml of secretin antiserum or NRS intravenously 1 h before beginning the infusion of CCK-58.



View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Effect of secretin antiserum on pancreatic fluid and bicarbonate secretion stimulated by synthetic rat secretin. Secretin (in 0.15 M NaCl with 0.1% BSA) was infused intravenously for 3 h following 1.5 h of vehicle infusion at 1 ml/h. Values shown are total output ± SE at each 30-min collection period. Secretin antiserum or normal rabbit serum (NRS), 0.1 ml, was injected as a bolus intravenously 60 min before infusion of secretin at 10 pmol·kg–1·h–1. Studies with NRS and secretin antiserum were conducted on the 4th and 5th days postoperative, respectively, in the same rats. *Significant difference between secretin plus NRS and secretin plus antiserum (paired t-test, n = 3). Additional analyses on the same data compared the incremental values during the last 2 h of secretin infusion, determined by subtracting the output of the last 30-min basal period from the mean output/30 min for the last 4 collection periods. Bicarbonate output: NRS vs. secretin antiserum, 9.26 ± 2.18 vs. –0.02 ± 1.06 µmol/30 min, respectively. Fluid output: NRS vs. secretin antiserum, 63.3 ± 17.1 vs. –3.92 ± 19.5 µl/30 min, respectively. Differences between NRS and secretin antiserum values were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.05, paired t-test).

 
To determine the maximally effective dose of secretin for volume and bicarbonate secretion, we infused synthetic rat secretin intravenously at the supraphysiological doses of 62.5, 125, and 250 pmol·kg–1·h–1 for 3 h.

Data Analysis

Statistical analysis. Results are expressed as means ± SE. To determine whether there were time-dependent changes in pancreatic secretion under basal or stimulated conditions, we compared effects of stimulants with preinfusion (basal) values by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures, followed by Dunnet's multiple comparison test (65). Comparisons between groups after a significant F-test (1-way ANOVA) were analyzed using the method of least significant difference (65).

Linear regression analysis of the relationship between protein and fluid output in pancreatic secretion. Pancreatic secretion in conscious rats is characterized by highly parallel secretion of protein and fluid when stimulated by dietary protein (casein), fat, trypsin inhibitors, diversion of bile-pancreatic juice from the intestine (6, 21, 24, 36, 40), and stimulation by vagal efferent discharge (1, 11, 23). Such a pattern in the present study was reproduced by CCK-58 but not by CCK-8. Such parallelism of protein and fluid is usually explained in reference to the two-component hypothesis of pancreatic secretion (31), in which the fluid and enzyme components of pancreatic juice are regulated separately and originate from distinct cell types. In the two-component paradigm, it is held that the bulk of fluid secretion is derived from duct cells, stimulated by secretin (one component), while acinar cells secrete the enzymes (in a small volume of chloride-rich fluid) under the influence of cholecystokinin or acetylcholine (the second component). Because CCK-58 in these studies stimulated a large volume of chloride-rich water secretion in the absence of any contribution by secretin, and because there are apparently no CCK-A receptors on rat pancreatic duct cells (55), we hypothesized that the source of both enzyme and water in CCK-58-stimulated pancreatic secretion is the acinar cell.

Linear regression analysis of the data can evaluate the latter hypothesis by investigating the relationship between protein output and fluid output in basal and stimulated pancreatic secretion. If enzyme secretion is tightly linked to fluid secretion (as might be the case if both originate from a single cell type), and if this is stimulated by a single hormone (e.g., CCK-58), the correlation between protein output and fluid output should be very strong (high R2 value) and statistically significant. On the other hand, if parallel output of protein and fluid is due to stimulation of separate cell types and by different hormones (the two-component paradigm), linear regression might show a weak or nonsignificant relationship between protein and fluid. Therefore, the relationships among protein, fluid, chloride, and bicarbonate output in pancreatic secretion during basal conditions and during stimulation by CCK-8, CCK-58, secretin, and camostat were investigated using linear regression analysis.

To examine the relationships among protein, fluid, chloride, and bicarbonate output, we used the method of linear regression analysis known as Model 2 regression, performed according to Fowler et al. (16). This method is recommended when neither of the pairs of variables analyzed is an independent variable but when an equation for the line of best fit through bivariate data is desired. Statistical analysis for significance of the regression in Model 2 is performed using ANOVA. The coefficient of determination (R2) in linear regression analysis by Model 2 is interpreted as indicating the proportion of variability in the y observations that can be accounted for by variability in the x observations, and vice versa, and is not an index of significance (16). For analysis of dose-response relationships for CCK-8 and CCK-58 vs. pancreatic secretion, the conventional Model 1 regression was performed using the program contained in Microsoft Excel, with dose as the independent variable.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Dose-Response Relationship for CCK-8 and CCK-58 on Pancreatic Protein and Fluid Output

Figure 2 illustrates the pattern of pancreatic protein and fluid output stimulated by CCK-8 and CCK-58 at doses doubling from 62.5 to 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1 over a 3-h period. Results are presented as increments above basal. The increment was calculated by subtracting the third 30-min basal value (the last collection before stimulants were administered) from each 30-min value during stimulant infusion. The average value for the last 30-min basal period for all experiments described (n = 172) was 200 ± 9.6 µl/30 min for fluid, 6.25 ± 0.3 mg/30 min for protein, 27.3 ± 1.15 µmol/30 min for chloride, and 6.72 ± 0.28 µmol/30 min for bicarbonate. The dose-response patterns for protein output with CCK-8 and CCK-58 were similar to each other in that they followed the same rank order, and significance differences occurred at the same doses for submaximal, maximal, and supramaximal responses, i.e., 250, 500, and 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1, respectively. Although total incremental protein output during the 3-h infusion was not significantly different between CCK-8 and CCK-58 at any dose (Table 1), protein output with CCK-8 was distinct from CCK-58 in that output with CCK-8 returned to values not significantly different from basal values by the end of the 3 h of infusion, whereas protein output remained significantly elevated compared with basal in CCK-58-treated rats. Pancreatic fluid secretion, however, was markedly different in both volume and in the pattern of secretion between CCK-8 and CCK-58. With CCK-58, pancreatic fluid secretion increased in a dose-related fashion up to 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1. In contrast, pancreatic fluid output with CCK-8 was not only significantly lower than with CCK-58, but the pattern was distinct in that there was no tendency for pancreatic juice volume to increase with increasing dose of CCK-8, and output was much more dramatically inhibited at the supramaximal dose than was the case with CCK-58.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Effect of cholecystokinin forms CCK-8 and CCK-58 on pancreatic protein and fluid output. Incremental fluid (top) and protein output (bottom) in rats stimulated by intravenous infusion for 3 h of CCK-8 or CCK-58 preceded by 1.5 h of vehicle (0.1% BSA in saline). Incremental output was calculated by subtracting the value of the last 30-min basal period from the total output for each 30-min period. Results are means ± SE from 6 to 9 rats per dose. With the exception of the 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1 dose, protein output was significantly dose related for both CCK-8 and CCK-58. Average incremental protein output (average output/30 min during 3-h infusion period) was not significantly different between CCK-8 and CCK-58 at any dose (see Table 1). Average incremental fluid output was significantly dose related for CCK-58 but not for CCK-8. *Significant difference between CCK-8 and CCK-58 values for the same collection period (t-test with adjustment for multiple comparison).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Protein, volume, bicarbonate, and chloride output in response to stimulation by CCK-8, CCK-58, secretin, and camostat

 
Figure 3 shows the changes in protein concentration in pancreatic juice stimulated by CCK-58 and CCK-8 over a 3-h period, calculated using the same data shown in Fig. 2. With CCK-58, protein concentration showed no significant increase at any dose except the supramaximal dose of 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1, despite large increases in protein output. In marked contrast, with CCK-8 there were large, dose-related increases in protein concentration, reaching a maximum concentration of ~90 mg/ml (compared with basal of ~24 mg/ml) at the dose of 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1.



View larger version (12K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Effect of CCK-8 and CCK-58 on protein concentration in pancreatic juice. Protein concentration (mg/ml) in rats stimulated by intravenous infusion for 3 h of CCK-8 or CCK-58 preceded by 1.5 h of vehicle (0.1% BSA in saline). Results are means ± SE from 6 to 8 rats per dose. During CCK-8 infusion, protein concentration was significantly increased (above basal) during the 1st or 2nd hour of infusion at all doses above 62.5 pmol·kg–1·h–1. During CCK-58 infusion, no significant change in protein concentration occurred except at the highest, supramaximal dose of 1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1, which nevertheless was much lower in concentration than was the case with supramaximal CCK-8. Significant differences from the last 30-min basal value are indicated for CCK-8 (*P < 0.05) or CCK-58 ({dagger}P < 0.05) experiments (1-way ANOVA with repeated measures, followed by Dunnet's multiple comparison test).

 
Comparison Among CCK-8, CCK-58, Secretin, and Camostat on Pancreatic Fluid Secretion and on Concentrations of Bicarbonate and Chloride

Figure 4 illustrates the total volume of pancreatic juice (bottom) and the corresponding changes in bicarbonate and chloride concentrations (top). Data are from the same study shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Secretin and camostat were infused at their maximally effective doses of 250 pmol·kg–1·h–1 and 5 mg/h respectively, and CCK-8 and CCK-58 were infused at their maximally effective dose (for protein output) of 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1. Controls received intravenous vehicle (0.15 M NaCl with 0.1 M bovine albumin). CCK-58, secretin, and camostat significantly increased pancreatic fluid secretion. The total volume of pancreatic juice stimulated by CCK-58 was equivalent to that caused by maximally effective doses of secretin and camostat. However, the pattern of chloride and bicarbonate concentrations in secretin-stimulated secretion was unique. Secretin caused characteristic and significant reciprocal changes in bicarbonate and chloride concentrations (14), which was not the case with CCK-58 or camostat. Fluid output with CCK-8 was not significantly increased at any 30-min collection period. The time-paired control group (n = 8) revealed no time-dependent changes in any parameter. Similarly to secretin, CCK-8 showed significant reciprocal changes in chloride and bicarbonate concentrations in pancreatic juice at all but the lowest dose, although the changes in concentrations were much less than was the case with secretin.



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Time course of pancreatic water secretion and concentration of bicarbonate and chloride during infusion of secretin, CCK-58, CCK-8, and camostat in conscious rats. Top: changes in bicarbonate ({triangleup}) and chloride ({blacksquare}) concentrations vs. time. Bottom: changes in volume of pancreatic juice vs. time ({blacksquare}). Data for CCK-8 and CCK-58 are from the same experiments described in Figs. 1 and 2. CCK-8 and CCK-58 were infused at their maximally effective doses (500 pmol·kg–1·h–1). Secretin was infused at its maximally effective dose of 250 pmol·kg–1·h–1 for 3 h. Camostat was infused at 5 mg/h intraduodenally for 3 h. Control group was infused intravenously with vehicle (0.1% BSA in saline). *Significantly different from value of final 30-min basal secretion. ANOVA revealed that there was a significant stimulatory effect on pancreatic juice volume during the 3-h infusion period with secretin, CCK-58, and Camostat but not with CCK-8 (F = 0.32, Fcrit = 2.29, n = 8). The only groups showing a significant change from basal in chloride and bicarbonate concentrations were secretin and CCK-8. Time-paired controls (n = 8) revealed no time-dependent changes in any parameter.

 
When calculated as incremental output (average output/30 min during the 3 h of peptide infusion minus output in the last 30-min basal period), there were no significant differences in fluid output among CCK-58, secretin, and camostat groups (Table 1). In contrast, because of the large increase in bicarbonate concentration caused by secretin, bicarbonate output was substantially and significantly increased in the secretin group compared with the CCK-58 and camostat groups (Table 1).

Role of CCK-A Receptor, Cholinergic Pathways, and Secretin in Pancreatic Secretory Response to CCK-58

The distinctly different pattern for bicarbonate and chloride concentrations between secretin and CCK-58 argues for an important difference between CCK-58 and secretin in stimulation of pancreatic fluid secretion. To further characterize the pancreatic fluid and protein secretory response to CCK-58, we infused the maximally effective dose of CCK-58, 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1, in the presence of atropine (100 µg·kg–1·h–1 iv), or the CCK-A receptor antagonist MK-329 (1 mg·kg–1·h–1 iv) or secretin antiserum (100 µl, bolus iv). Results are shown in Fig. 5.



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Effect of CCK-A receptor antagonist (MK-329), cholinergic antagonist (atropine), and secretin antiserum on incremental pancreatic protein and fluid secretion stimulated by CCK-58. CCK-58 was infused at 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1 (maximally effective dose) for 3 h as described in Fig. 2 legend. MK-329 was infused continuously intravenously at 1 mg·kg–1·h–1 beginning 1 h before the start of CCK-58 infusion. Atropine (100 µg/100 g body wt in 0.15 M NaCl) was infused continuously intravenously starting 30 min before infusion of CCK-58 began. Secretin antiserum was injected intravenously as a bolus (0.1 ml) 60 min before CCK-58 infusion. Vehicles had no effect on results (for MK-329, dimethyl sulfoxide/Tween 80/saline 1:1:3; for secretin antiserum, NRS; and for atropine, 0.15 M NaCl). Essential preliminary experiments (Fig. 1) showed that this dose of secretin antiserum abolished the pancreatic water and bicarbonate response to a supraphysiological dose of synthetic rat secretin (10 pmol·kg–1·h–1). Results are means ± SE from 6–8 rats in each group. *Significant difference compared with other 3 groups (ANOVA). No other comparisons were significantly different. Secretin antiserum also had no effect on bicarbonate secretion stimulated by CCK-58 (not shown).

 
MK-329 abolished pancreatic protein and fluid secretion in response to CCK-58. Atropine had no inhibitory effect on either protein or fluid output stimulated by CCK-58, instead slightly increasing both (not statistically significant). The significantly greater stimulation of fluid secretion by CCK-58 compared with CCK-8, shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1, was preserved in the presence of atropine (not shown). Under atropine, the incremental fluid output stimulated by CCK-8 and CCK-58 was 55.8 ± 12.9 and 183 ± 40.8 µl/30 min, respectively (n = 6 each). The effects of MK-329 and atropine on pancreatic secretion were also tested at the lowest dose of CCK-58. MK-329 abolished and atropine had no significant effect on protein or fluid secretion stimulated by 62.5 pmol·kg–1·h–1 of CCK-58 (not shown). The absence of inhibitory effects of atropine on pancreatic secretion stimulated by exogenous or endogenous cholecystokinin in conscious, recovered rats is well established (6, 33, 41). Surprisingly, MK-329 had no effect on the pancreatic fluid secretion caused by 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1 of CCK-8, while abolishing protein output (not shown). Secretin antiserum had no inhibitory effect on the pancreatic fluid or protein secretory response to CCK-58 at 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1. Preliminary studies showed that this dose of secretin antiserum was sufficient to abolish the pancreatic fluid and bicarbonate response to a supraphysiological dose of synthetic rat secretin (Fig. 1 and MATERIALS AND METHODS). Secretin antiserum also had no effect on bicarbonate secretion stimulated by 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1 of CCK-58 (not shown).

Linear Regression Analysis of Relationship Between Protein and Fluid Output in Basal Pancreatic Secretion and Secretion Stimulated by CCK-8, CCK-58, or Camostat

Figure 6 shows the relationship between protein and fluid output (top) and between protein and chloride output (bottom) in CCK-8- and CCK-58-stimulated pancreatic secretion compared with time-paired controls (left). The time period analyzed is the first 60 min of peptide infusion and the corresponding period in time-paired controls.1 Results for CCK-8 (n = 30) and CCK-58 (n = 29) are for all doses (62.5–500 pmol·kg–1·h–1) except for the supramaximal dose (1,000 pmol·kg–1·h–1). For CCK-58, the regression reveals a strong linear relationship for protein vs. volume and for protein vs. chloride output. In contrast, the same analysis shows that there is no significant linear relationship for CCK-8-stimulated pancreatic secretion or for the controls. Preliminary experiments showed that rat synthetic CCK-33 produced the same protein-fluid relationship as CCK-8 (unpublished observations).



View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Linear regression analysis of pancreatic protein vs. fluid secretion and protein vs. chloride secretion in rats treated with CCK-8, CCK-58, and controls. Rats were infused intravenously with CCK-8 or CCK-58 at 62.5, 125, 250, and 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1 for 3 h during collection of pancreatic juice. Results shown are incremental (basal subtracted) protein, fluid, and chloride output for all doses (n = 7–8 at each dose level) during the initial 60 min (to peak protein output) of peptide infusion and total output during the corresponding period in time-paired controls. Numbers of animals studied were 8 control, 30 CCK-8, and 28 CCK-58 rats. Regression of fluid output vs. protein output and chloride output vs. protein output for rats treated with CCK-58 showed strong linear relationships (R2 = 0.83 and 0.82, respectively) that were highly significant (P < 10–11 and 10–12, respectively). In contrast, rats treated with CCK-8 showed no correlation between protein output vs. fluid output or vs. chloride output (P > 0.1). Likewise, there was no correlation between fluid and protein or chloride and protein during the corresponding time period in time-paired controls.

 
The strong correlation between protein and fluid output with CCK-58 and with camostat was not dependent on the rate of fluid secretion. With CCK-58, even at the lowest dose of 62.5 pmol·kg–1·h–1, the correlation between protein and water output was strong and statistically significant. Coefficients of determination (R2) for protein vs. volume at each dose level of CCK-58 were 0.80, 0.68, 0.94, and 0.74 for dose levels of 62.5, 125, 250, and 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1, respectively, and regressions were statistically significant at each dose level. Corresponding R2 values for CCK-8 were 0.16, 0.21, 0.001, and 0.001, with none of the regressions achieving statistical significance (P > 0.30). Thus, even though protein output and fluid output changed in parallel at the 62.5 pmol·kg–1·h–1 dose with both CCK-8 and CCK-58, only with CCK-58 were protein output and fluid output significantly correlated at this low dose. Likewise, in studies reported elsewhere (30), when camostat was infused intraduodenally at submaximal doses of 0.05 and 0.2 mg/h and at the maximally effective dose of 0.5 mg/h, the R2 value at each dose was ≥0.95 (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Relationship between volume of pancreatic juice and output of protein during basal periods and during stimulation by secretin, 2-deoxy-D-glucose, triglyceride infusion, and camostat infusion

 
Figure 7 shows the time course of pancreatic protein and fluid secretion in rats infused intraduodenally with either casein (10% solution, 5 ml/h) or camostat (5 mg/h in saline) and the results of linear regression analysis (Model 2) of protein vs. fluid output. Both casein and camostat stimulated parallel secretion of protein and fluid (Fig. 7, left). Regression analysis of protein vs. fluid output for the basal periods shows that there was no linear relationship between protein and fluid output (Fig. 7, middle). Upon stimulation with casein or camostat, the relationship between protein output and fluid output immediately became strongly linearly correlated, with the R2 value equal to 0.9 or greater. The periods analyzed for stimulated secretion were the first 30 min with casein and the first 60 min with camostat, corresponding to the time required to reach maximal protein output. Chloride output in basal and stimulated pancreatic juice also was measured in camostat experiments, and the regression of chloride vs. protein output was almost identical to that of water vs. protein output, i.e., R2 = 0.04 for basal and 0.94 for stimulated secretion (not shown). Compared with basal, camostat caused a significant increase in protein output (F = 2.79, Fcrit = 2.15, P = 0.01) but did not significantly increase protein concentration in pancreatic juice (F = 0.37, Fcrit = 2.15, P = 0.93), similar to the pancreatic protein secretory response to CCK-58.



View larger version (28K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Pancreatic protein and fluid output in rats stimulated by intraduodenal casein and intraduodenal trypsin inhibitor (camostat). Rats were infused continuously intraduodenally for 2 h with saline at 5 ml/h. At time 0, they were infused for 2 h with 5 ml/h of 10% casein (n = 7) or for 3 h with 5 mg/h of camostat (n = 6). Protein ({blacksquare}) and fluid ({circ}) output vs. time are shown at left. Results of linear regression analysis (Model 2) of fluid and protein output data during basal (prestimulated) secretion are shown at middle. Results of linear regression analysis of incremental (basal subtracted) fluid output and protein output during the initial 30 min (to peak protein output) of casein infusion and the initial 60 min (to peak protein output) of camostat infusion are shown at right. Regressions were significant for casein- and camostat-stimulated secretion (P < 0.001 and P < 10–5, respectively, ANOVA). Regressions for basal secretion were not statistically significant (P > 0.6).

 
The ratio of bicarbonate output (µmol/30 min) to protein output (mg/30 min) was calculated for secretin, CCK-58, and camostat groups to determine whether it revealed any effect of secretin release in the effects of camostat on pancreatic secretion. Ratios were 6.07 ± 0.71, 2.19 ± 0.77, and 0.76 ± 0.17 for secretin (n = 18), camostat (n = 6), and CCK-58 (n = 24), respectively, with each group significantly different from the others. The greater bicarbonate/protein ratio of camostat-stimulated pancreatic secretion compared with CCK-58 was expected, because camostat stimulates release of both CCK-58 (48) and secretin (68).

Relationship of Bicarbonate and Chloride Secretion to Secretion of Protein and Water in Pancreatic Secretion Stimulated by CCK-58

Regression analysis of protein vs. fluid produced R2 values that were nearly identical to those obtained with regression analysis of protein vs. chloride in CCK-58- and camostat-stimulated pancreatic secretion. This is not surprising, because chloride ion secretion is considered to be necessary for water secretion by secretory epithelia (17). Regression of water output with chloride output in all of the studies reported in this study showed a strong linear correlation under both basal and stimulated conditions, with R2 values of 0.88–0.99 under all experimental conditions (>1,000 data points). Figure 8 shows the relationship of water output vs. chloride output (Fig. 8, left), water output vs. bicarbonate output (Fig. 8, middle), and water output vs. the sum of chloride plus bicarbonate output (Fig. 8, right) in all studies with rats stimulated by CCK-58 (n = 41). Each point in the scattergram is the average rate of secretion (above basal) during the entire 3-h period of peptide infusion.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Relationship between volume of pancreatic juice and output of chloride and bicarbonate ions in secretion stimulated by CCK-58. Linear regression analysis (Model 2) examined the relationship between volume of pancreatic secretion vs. output of chloride, vs. output of bicarbonate, and vs. the sum of chloride and bicarbonate output. Values analyzed were the average incremental (basal subtracted) outputs (volume of chloride in µl/30 min or bicarbonate in µmol/30 min) during the entire 3 h of stimulant infusion. All regressions were statistically significant (P < 10–7, ANOVA). In equations, y = volume in µl/30 min, x = µmol/30 min. Results indicate that pancreatic water secretion is driven by both chloride and bicarbonate secretion. Identical analyses were performed for pancreatic secretion stimulated by CCK-8, secretin, and camostat and for basal secretion and are shown in Table 3.

 
Water output vs. chloride output showed a strong linear relationship, with an R2 value of 0.92. The relationship of water secretion vs. bicarbonate secretion also showed a significant linear relationship, but the relationship was not nearly as strong, as indicated by the more widely scattered points and an R2 value of only 0.55. When water output vs. the sum of chloride and bicarbonate output was analyzed, the result was a virtually perfect linear relationship (R2 = 0.99). These results strongly indicate that both chloride and bicarbonate secretion drive water secretion in the exocrine pancreas stimulated by CCK-58 but with chloride secretion apparently having the major role. Regression analysis for these same parameters during stimulation by CCK-8, secretin, and camostat and during basal secretion is summarized in Table 3.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 3. Relationship between volume of pancreatic juice and output of chloride and bicarbonate during basal conditions and during stimulation

 
Because of the very strong correlation between fluid output vs. the sum of chloride and bicarbonate output described above, we further analyzed the relationship between protein output and the output of water, chloride, bicarbonate, and the sum of chloride and bicarbonate output. We chose the data from CCK-58 infused at the submaximal dose of 250 pmol·kg–1·h–1, because this dose yielded the strongest correlation of the doses tested and because it was more likely to be a physiological dose given that it stimulated protein output similar to that stimulated by camostat. The results show that the strongest correlation (R2) for protein output was with water output and with the sum of chloride plus bicarbonate output (Fig. 9), with a lesser, but still very strong, correlation with chloride output alone and bicarbonate output alone. Taken together, the results shown in Figs. 8 and 9 indicate that both chloride and bicarbonate secretion drive pancreatic water secretion and that the acinar cell may be the source of both chloride and bicarbonate secretion stimulated by CCK-58.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 9. Relationship between protein output and output of chloride and bicarbonate in pancreatic juice stimulated by CCK-58. Linear regression analysis (Model 2) examined the relationship between protein output vs. output of fluid vs. output of chloride, vs. output of bicarbonate, and vs. the sum of chloride and bicarbonate output in pancreatic secretion stimulated by 250 pmol·kg–1·h–1 of CCK-58 (n = 7). Values analyzed were the average incremental (basal subtracted) outputs during the initial 60 min of stimulant infusion. In equations, y = protein output in mg/30 min and x = µmol/30 min. All regressions were statistically significant (ANOVA). P values were 0.001, 0.002, 0.003, and 0.001 for protein vs. fluid, chloride, bicarbonate, and chloride + bicarbonate, respectively. When analyses included all doses of CCK-58 (n = 30) other than supramaximal, the corresponding R2 values were 0.83, 0.82, 0.74, and 0.84, with all regressions statistically significant (P < 10–9) (not shown). In camostat-treated rats described in Fig. 7 legend, the same regression analysis yielded R2 values of 0.88, 0.94, 0.67, and 0.93 for protein output vs. output of fluid, chloride, bicarbonate, and the sum of chloride and bicarbonate output, with a significance of P = 0.006, 0.001, 0.046, and 0.002, respectively (not shown). The strong correlation between protein output and chloride plus bicarbonate output suggests that both anions are secreted from the acinar cell.

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
The results of these studies challenge several concepts concerning regulation of pancreatic secretion and the physiology of cholecystokinin. First among these is the commonly held assumption that the full spectrum of physiological activities of cholecystokinin is contained in the COOH-terminal heptapeptide (31). We observed that CCK-58 is a strong stimulant of pancreatic water and chloride secretion, whereas CCK-8 stimulates water and chloride secretion weakly and not in a dose-dependent manner. Thus the important actions of cholecystokinin may require the entire CCK-58 molecule. Furthermore, the recent finding that CCK-58 is the only endocrine form of cholecystokinin in the rat adds further to the significance of the finding of a wider spectrum of bioactivity of CCK-58 (48). In addition to our work, other investigators have also reported qualitative differences in the bioactivity of CCK-8 vs. CCK-58 in tissues other than the pancreas (18, 64).

The lack of substantial or significant stimulation of fluid secretion by CCK-8 or caerulein in conscious rats is well documented (32, 37, 39, 40, 44). In contrast, in acutely operated, anesthetized rats, CCK-8 has been shown to significantly increase pancreatic juice volume to an even greater degree than secretin (44). This effect may be a consequence of the greatly suppressed basal pancreatic secretion caused by operative trauma rather than anesthesia itself, because reanesthetization after recovery from surgery did not cause significant inhibition of basal secretion (12), or the inhibition was much less severe (70). The strong stimulatory effect of CCK-8 or caerulein on volume of pancreatic juice in acutely operated, anesthetized rats may be secondary to improved blood flow to the pancreas (38), which would be expected to increase both acinar and ductule fluid secretion.

The different efficacies for stimulating pancreatic fluid secretion between CCK-8 and CCK-58 are unlikely to be due to differences in half-life in the circulation. The potencies for CCK-8 and CCK-58 were the same for stimulation of protein output, resulting in the same doses for maximal stimulation and supramaximal inhibition. In dogs, the half-life of canine CCK-58 was 4.4 ± 0.6 min compared with 1.3 ± 0.1 min for CCK-8 (27). Although we have not done the analogous studies for rat CCK-58 and CCK-8, the major difference in effects between the two forms is qualitative, i.e., one form stimulates fluid secretion in a dose-related fashion, and the other does not, and this cannot be explained by differences in circulating half-lives.

Although CCK-8 did not significantly increase pancreatic water output at any 30-min collection period, bicarbonate and chloride concentrations were significantly changed in response to CCK-8, in contrast to CCK-58 and camostat. However, the lack of a dose-related effect of CCK-8 on fluid secretion and the secretin-like pattern of chloride and bicarbonate concentrations suggest that the fluid and electrolyte responses to CCK-8 may be pharmacological rather than physiological. This conclusion is supported by the failure to detect CCK-8 in rat blood (48), which suggests that CCK-8 may not be a physiological form of cholecystokinin. Also, we observed in these studies (not shown) that the pancreatic fluid and electrolyte response to CCK-8 was unaffected by MK-329, in contrast to the complete blockade of the same responses with CCK-58 and suggesting that CCK-8 may be acting in a nonphysiological manner on duct cells, as duct cells apparently have no CCK-A receptors (55).

The finding that the endogenous form of cholecystokinin (CCK-58) is a strong stimulant of pancreatic water secretion may explain the observation of parallel inhibition of pancreatic protein and water secretion by CCK-A receptor antagonists in rats in which pancreatic secretion is stimulated by food or diversion of pancreatic juice from the intestine. In those studies, protein output was sharply decreased, but because water output was proportionally decreased, protein concentration changed little (6, 62, 63).

A widely accepted model proposes that the bulk of pancreatic water secretion arises from duct cells under the influence of secretin (14, 31). We therefore compared the patterns of pancreatic water secretion and corresponding concentrations of chloride and bicarbonate caused by synthetic secretin (rat sequence), CCK-58, CCK-8, and camostat. Figure 4 shows that secretin infused at the maximally effective dose of 250 pmol·kg–1·h–1 stimulated water output equivalent in volume to that caused by 500 pmol·kg–1·h–1 of CCK-58 and by 5 mg/h of intraduodenal camostat but much greater than that caused by CCK-8. However, the pattern of chloride and bicarbonate concentrations in secretin-stimulated secretion was unique compared with that caused by CCK-58 and camostat. Secretin caused characteristic reciprocal changes in bicarbonate and chloride concentrations typical of stimulation of pancreatic duct cells (14), which was not the case with CCK-58 or with camostat. The distinctly different pattern for bicarbonate and chloride concentrations between secretin and CCK-58 suggests that the stimulation of electrolyte secretion by CCK-58 is independent of secretin and that stimulation of bicarbonate secretion by synthetic secretin in these studies may have occurred at the duct cells. Immunoneutralizion of circulating secretin with secretin antiserum did not inhibit pancreatic water, bicarbonate, or protein secretion stimulated by CCK-58, but the strong stimulation of water output, as well as protein output, by CCK-58 was abolished by the CCK-A receptor antagonist MK-329 (Fig. 5). These observations further strengthen the view that effects of CCK-58 on pancreatic secretion are independent of secretin.

The sharp contrast (shown in Fig. 7 and Table 2) between basal secretion, in which there was no correlation between protein and water output, and stimulated secretion, in which there was an immediate strong correlation of protein and water output, is noteworthy. This is all the more remarkable considering that basal or interdigestive protein and water secretion constitutes from one-third to two-thirds of the total protein and water output in maximally stimulated pancreatic secretion in conscious rats. This contrast between basal and stimulated pancreatic secretion must be due to different mechanisms regulating interdigestive secretion compared with stimulated secretion, different intracellular compartmentalization or processing of enzyme under basal conditions vs. stimulated conditions, or different cellular origins of the enzyme component and water component in basal secretion compared with stimulated secretion (e.g., acinar vs. ductule for water secretion).

The latter possibility draws some support from studies of pancreatic secretion in rats in which the acinar cells were destroyed by a copper-deficient diet plus penicillamine (14), which indicates that basal interdigestive pancreatic water secretion is entirely of ductal origin. However, secretion studies in those experiments (14) were carried out under urethane anesthesia, which strongly suppresses (~90%) both basal and stimulated pancreatic protein and water secretion (70), and that model (copper-deficient diet plus penicillamine) manifests chronically elevated plasma cholecystokinin levels (15), so it is not known with certainty whether basal pancreatic water secretion in the rat is predominately of acinar or ductal origin.

Implications of These Studies for the Two-Component Paradigm for Pancreatic Secretion

The "two-component" paradigm has dominated thinking about the source, composition, and regulation of pancreatic secretion for 65 years (35). In this paradigm, pancreatic enzyme, on one hand, and the bulk of pancreatic fluid on the other, arise from distinct cell types, acinar and duct cells, respectively (31). The two-component model also specifies that these secretions be regulated separately, with acinar cell secretion predominately regulated by cholecystokinin or acetylcholine and duct cell secretion predominately regulated by secretin. Therefore, during a meal, pancreatic digestive enzymes mobilized in acinar cells are "washed out" in a small volume of plasma-like acinar fluid into the duct system, where they are diluted by a much larger volume of bicarbonate-rich fluid to form the final secretion. In the two-component model, under physiological conditions one would expect to see widely varying concentrations of protein (depending on strength of stimulus at the acinar cell) in a final solution in which the predominant anion is bicarbonate from the duct cell.2

A modification of the two-component paradigm may be justified on the basis of results of the present study, which suggest that the acinar cell rather than the duct cell is the origin of water in pancreatic secretion stimulated by physiological agonists. This finding is based on the very strong correlation between protein and water output in stimulated secretion and the significantly greater chloride concentration in pancreatic secretion stimulated by CCK-58 compared with secretin.

We suggest that the strong correlation between protein output and water output under stimulated conditions either unmasks a tight intracellular linkage between protein and water output or is evidence of a dependence of protein secretion on water secretion. The evidence for these propositions is as follows: in cannulated, awake rats fully recovered from surgery, pancreatic protein and fluid output changed in highly parallel fashion when stimulated by various treatments that increase either endogenous cholecystokinin release (6, 21, 36, 40) or vagal efferent discharge (1, 11, 23) such that protein concentration changed little despite wide variations in protein output. Furthermore, when pancreatic secretion of protein (or enzyme) vs. pancreatic secretion of water is analyzed in a variety of models, including humans, the two appear to be strongly correlated, again suggesting either an intracellular linkage between protein and water output or a dependence of protein output on water output (26, 28, 52). The occurrence of such parallelism under the two-component paradigm would require very close coordination in release of acinar cell/enzyme-stimulating factors (cholecystokinin and acetylcholine) with release of duct cell/water-stimulating factors (secretin) and the simultaneous occupation of respective receptors on acinar and duct cells, yielding approximately the same degree of stimulation for both acinar and duct cells. Although there is no theoretical objection to this coordination, the observation that cholecystokinin and secretin are released from separate cells (I cells vs. S cells) and by different intestinal stimuli (e.g., dietary protein vs. low pH) makes such close coordination seem unlikely.

Is the strong correlation between fluid and protein output specific to cholecystokinin (CCK-58)-stimulated pancreatic secretion? We performed linear regression analysis on the original data from two previously published studies in which pancreatic secretion was stimulated by intraduodenal triglyceride or vagally by intravenous infusion of 2-deoxyglucose (23, 60) and on the pancreatic secretion stimulated by synthetic secretin in the present studies. Results in Table 2 show that for these three stimuli, protein output vs. fluid output were strongly correlated in stimulated secretion. This finding indicates that for both neural stimulation and hormonal stimulation of the pancreas, the protein and fluid output is strongly and significantly correlated.

An alternative interpretation of the strong correlation between protein and water secretion that would be more consistent with the two-component paradigm could be that stimulation of a vagovagal reflex by CCK-58 activates efferent nerves that innervate both the pancreatic acini and ducts, causing simultaneous stimulation of acinar and duct cells. This would then pose the question why CCK-8 apparently fails to activate both the acini and ductal arms of this putative reflex.

The concept that the acinar cell may be the source of stimulated (above basal) pancreatic water secretion is not new. Secretin receptors are found on pancreatic acinar cells of several species, including rat and guinea pig (29, 66). Ultrastructural studies indicate that the rat pancreatic acinar cell is a site of secretin-stimulated pancreatic water secretion (2). The pancreatic acinar cells (as well as the duct cells) of mice and rats possess the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) in their apical membranes and express functional CFTR-dependent chloride channels (73). In light of the above, it is noteworthy that duct cells in the rat constitute only ~5% of total cell volume of pancreatic tissue, whereas acinar cells account for ~77% of cell volume in this species (4).

The acinar cell appears to be the source of the water hypersecretion in pancreatic juice of rats recovering from acute pancreatitis or subjected to trypsin inhibitor feeding. Pancreatic water hypersecretion occurs 6–12 h after intragastric infusion of trypsin inhibitor and during the recovery phase of caerulein-induced acute pancreatitis (9, 10, 72). This pancreatic juice was chloride rich (124 meq/l), and the increased secretion was associated with a 7.7-fold increase in the labeling index of acinar cells and a smaller, 2.6-fold increase in the labeling index of duct cells. The authors concluded that the time course of proliferating acinar cells and the high chloride concentration of the juice indicated that acinar cells were the source of the fluid hypersecretion.

Finally, the concept of the acinar cell as a major source of water in stimulated exocrine secretions should not seem unfamiliar given that the acinar cells of the salivary glands are the sole source of water in saliva. The duct cells of the salivon modify the primary (acinar) secretion by modification of electrolyte concentrations, but they add no water (8). Also, similar to the discovery in the pancreas is the finding of CFTR-dependent chloride channels in the acinar cells of the submandibular gland (73). Salivary fluid secretion is driven by a calcium signal that stimulates apically located chloride channels, analogous to the role of calcium in stimulation of enzyme secretion by rat pancreatic acinar cells (42). However, whereas fluid secretion is considered to be a primary function of salivary and lacrimal acinar cells (referred to as fluid-secreting acinar cells), fluid secretion is not considered to be a primary function of the pancreatic acinar cell (25). The belief that fluid secretion is not a primary function of the pancreatic acinar cell does not rest on evidence that directly compares the volume of pancreatic acinar vs. pancreatic ductal fluid secretion but is accepted largely because of the wide acceptance of the two-component model for pancreatic exocrine secretion. We suggest that the acinar cell of the pancreas should be considered a "fluid-secreting" acinar cell, analogous to the salivary and lacrimal glands, and that, in the rat, the acinar cell is the predominant source of stimulated pancreatic water secretion.

Role of Secretin in Regulation of Pancreatic Water Secretion

The trypsin inhibitor camostat releases both cholecystokinin and secretin. Pancreatic water and protein secretion stimulated by camostat are markedly inhibited by blocking the action of either secretin or cholecystokinin separately and are abolished by blocking the action of both secretin and cholecystokinin simultaneously (68). This observation is consistent with many studies showing potentiation between secretin and cholecystokinin in exocrine pancreatic function (57). The phenomenon of potentiation between cholecystokinin and secretin in pancreatic secretion has long been recognized, but the locus of this interaction is not known (5, 69). Others have proposed that the concept of potentiation requires that the potentiating stimuli act on different membrane receptors triggering distinct cellular pathways, but implicit in this concept is that the different receptors and distinct pathways are located in the same cell (31).

Does the cholecystokinin-secretin interaction occur at the acinar cell or the duct cell? Camostat-stimulated water (and chloride) secretion was tightly linked to protein secretion (Fig. 7, bottom), suggesting that the increased water secretion came from the same cell type as the protein secretion, i.e., the acinar cell. Furthermore, the likelihood of cholecystokinin stimulation of pancreatic water secretion by acting on duct cells is doubtful, because rat pancreatic duct cells apparently do not possess CCK-A receptors (55). Furthermore, purified porcine CCK-33 had no effect on secretin-stimulated pancreatic fluid output or bicarbonate output (i.e., no potentiation of secretin-stimulated water or bicarbonate secretion) in rats in which the acinar cells had been selectively destroyed by feeding a copper-deficient diet with penicillamine (14). These observations, together with our understanding of potentiation as it applies to regulation of secretion at the cellular level (56), cannot easily be reconciled with cholecystokinin and secretin interacting through separate cell types, but they are compatible with secretin and cholecystokinin acting through separate receptors on the same cell type, the acinar cell.

Whether potentiation of secretin-stimulated bicarbonate secretion by cholecystokinin can occur at the acinar cell is unknown. The acinar cell has not been considered to be an important source of pancreatic bicarbonate secretion. However, fluid collected from the acini of rabbit pancreas contains bicarbonate at concentrations four times that of extracellular fluid (4). The discovery that CFTR may also act as a bicarbonate channel (47) and the finding of CFTR in rat and mouse pancreatic apical acinar membrane (73) opens the possibility that the undetermined locus at which cholecystokinin, as well as acetylcholine, potentiates secretin-stimulated bicarbonate secretion may be the acinar cell. This hypothesis is further strengthened by our finding in the present study of a strong correlation between protein output and the summed output of chloride and bicarbonate.

Secretin receptors are found on pancreatic acinar cells of several species, including rat and guinea pig (29, 66). These observations suggest that synergistic interaction of secretin and cholecystokinin in stimulation of pancreatic water secretion occurs at the acinar cell, where acinar cell fluid secretion is integrated with protein secretion via as yet uncharacterized interaction of the second messengers cAMP and cellular calcium (67). It is not known whether secretin receptors are present on human pancreatic acinar cells, but the possibility is indicated by studies of Susini et al. (61), who reported that isolated human pancreatic acini responded to secretin and VIP with an increase in cellular cAMP.

Mechanism for Proposed Coupling of Protein Secretion With Water Secretion in Pancreas

A molecular basis for the hypothetical coupling of protein and water in pancreatic secretion evidenced in the present study is provided by studies of Park et al. (42) in which they demonstrated the presence of calcium-activated chloride channels in the apical, but not basolateral, plasma membrane of the mouse pancreatic acinar cell. These channels respond to the same pattern of intracellular calcium release that is associated with cholecystokinin-stimulated or acetylcholine-stimulated enzyme mobilization and discharge. In agreement with this finding, output of chloride with CCK-58 and camostat in the present studies was strongly correlated with protein output. Park et al. concluded that linkage of pancreatic water secretion and protein secretion in the acinar cell occurs via a common event, the increase of intracellular calcium, which causes enzyme mobilization and also activates apical chloride channels. This scenario could also account for the strong correlation between protein output and chloride/water output in rats treated with camostat (which releases both cholecystokinin and secretin), because cAMP and calcium have been shown to interact synergistically on apical chloride conductance in T84 colonic epithelial cells (67). Whether cAMP mediates the increased bicarbonate secretion associated with CCK-58 treatment remains to be determined.

What Can Account for the Aberrant Actions of CCK-8?

Although CCK-8 also increases intracellular calcium that, in turn, mobilizes enzyme secretion, CCK-8 fails to stimulate pancreatic water and chloride secretion and abolishes all pancreatic water secretion at high supramaximal doses (19). One explanation for the failure of CCK-8 to stimulate water secretion could be that CCK-8 uncouples chloride secretion from increased intracellular calcium and, consequently, uncouples water secretion from protein secretion. An uncoupling of increased cellular calcium and calcium-activated apical chloride channels has been described in cell lines originating from intestinal epithelia (17) and more recently in a human cystic fibrosis pancreatic ductal cell line (3). Another explanation rests on the observation that CCK-8 has a greater tendency to elicit global calcium transients than does acetylcholine (43, 46). This globalization may reduce sodium gradient-driven chloride uptake across the basal membrane (45), thereby inhibiting apical chloride and fluid secretion. If CCK-58 affects calcium transients differently than CCK-8 (CCK-58 behaving more like acetylcholine), this may explain the greater ability of CCK-58 to stimulate chloride and water secretion. Studies to elucidate these possibilities await the comparison of CCK-8, CCK-58, and acetylcholine in isolated pancreatic acinar cells. Attempts to investigate actions of CCK-58 by using dispersed pancreatic acinar cell preparations have been inconclusive, because all such preparations caused rapid degradation of 125I-labeled CCK-58, despite addition of a wide spectrum of protease inhibitors to the assay media (unpublished observations).

Pathophysiological Implications of CCK-58 Effects on Pancreatic Protein and Water Secretion

These studies may shed light on exocrine pancreatic diseases such as alcoholic pancreatitis and cystic fibrosis. In both diseases it is believed that a diminution in pancreatic ductule fluid secretion leads to obstruction of secretion, both acinar and ductule (50, 53). If a deficit in pancreatic acinar water secretion is also involved in these diseases, it would suggest that an additional target for intervention would be electrolyte and water transport by the acinar cell. The supramaximal CCK-8/caerulein model for acute pancreatitis may be a model of pancreatic acinar fluid insufficiency, because, in a preliminary report, we showed that in contrast to CCK-8, large supramaximal doses of CCK-58 (2–4 nmol·kg–1·h–1) cause minimal or no pancreatitis in the rat, which was associated with maintenance of pancreatic water secretion (71).

The studies reported in the present study and elsewhere indicate that CCK-58 stimulates actions that are qualitatively different from those stimulated by CCK-8 (18, 64). Together with the demonstration that CCK-58 is the only circulating form of cholecystokinin in the rat and considering that this is probably true in humans as well (13), these results suggest that actions attributed to cholecystokinin, but that were based on studies with CCK-8, may need to be reexamined. Nevertheless, actions of CCK-8 appear to mimic pathological processes, and therefore CCK-8 will continue to be a valuable tool for investigating pancreatitis and possibly cystic fibrosis. It is also conceivable that CCK-8 may occur in some pathological states in which breakdown of cholecystokinin is enhanced in blood or interstitial fluid.

Other peptide hormones have been shown to exist in more than one molecular form (e.g., peptide YY). The question therefore becomes, what are the actual endocrine forms and levels of these peptide hormones? Do they exist as identified, or are they artifacts of degradation during processing of blood? Furthermore, as shown in the present report with cholecystokinin, do the various forms of a given hormone have qualitative differences in bioactivity?


    GRANTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
This work was supported by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Grants DK-33850 (to J. R. Reeve, Jr.) and DK-37482 (to G. M. Green), by the Veterans Administration Research Service, by National Institutes of Health Center for Ulcer Research and Education: Digestive Diseases Research Center Grant DK-41301, and by the Peptide Biochemistry Core.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We appreciate the expertise of F. J. Ho for the synthesis and purification of rat CCK-58.

Present address of M. Yamamoto: University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Japan, School of Medicine, 1-1 Iseigaoka, Yahatanisi-ku, Kitakyushu 807-8555, Japan (E-mail: m-yamamo{at}med.uoeh-u.ac.jp).


    FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. R. Reeve, Jr., CURE: Digestive Disease Research Center, Dept. of Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA 90073 (E-mail: jreeve{at}ucla.edu)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1 Correlation between fluid and protein output with all stimulants (except CCK-8) was very strong up to the time of maximal protein output, regardless of whether maximal output occurred at the first, second, or third 30-min period, which prevented or minimized increases in protein concentration. Beyond peak protein output, the correlation weakened as fluid output often continued to rise while protein output plateaued or declined (see Fig. 2). Back

2 In species that cannot generate high bicarbonate concentrations in pancreatic juice, e.g., rat and mouse, the predominant anion is always chloride, as shown in Fig. 4. Nevertheless, the origin of the chloride-rich component of pancreatic secretion stimulated by cholecystokinin and acetylcholine is considered to be acinar in origin (4). Back


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Alphin RS and Lin TM. Effect of feeding and sham feeding on pancreatic secretion of the rat. Am J Physiol 197: 260–262, 1959.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Blomfield J and Settree PJ. Ultrastructural responses of rat exocrine pancreas to cholecystokinin octapeptide and secretin. Exp Mol Pathol 38: 389–397, 1983.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  3. Carew MA, Yang X, Schultz C, and Shears SB. myo-Inositol 3,4,5,6-tetrakisphosphate inhibits an apical calcium-activated chloride conductance in polarized monolayers of a cystic fibrosis cell line. J Biol Chem 275: 26906–26913, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Case RM and Argent BE. Pancreatic secretion of electrolytes and water. In: Handbook of Physiology. The Gastrointestinal System. Salivary, Gastric, Pancreatic, and Hepatobiliary Secretion. Bethesda, MD: Am. Physiol. Soc., 1989, sect. 6, vol. III, chapt. 20, p. 383–417.
  5. Case RM and Argent BE. Pancreatic duct cell secretion: control and mechanism of transport. In: The Pancreas: Biology, Pathology, and Disease, edited by Go VLW, DiMagno, EP, Gardner JD, Lebenthal E, Reber HA, and Scheele GA. New York: Raven, 1993, p. 301–350.
  6. Chariot J, Nagain C, Hugonet F, Tsocas A, and Roze C. Control of interdigestive and intraduodenal meal-stimulated pancreatic secretion in rats. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 259: G198–G204, 1990.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Chey WY and Chang T. Neural hormonal regulation of exocrine pancreatic secretion. Pancreatology 1: 320–335, 2001.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  8. Cook DI, van Lennep EW, Roberts ML, and Young JA. Secretion by major salivary glands. In: Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract (3rd ed.), edited by Johnson LR. New York: Raven, 1994, p. 1061–1117.
  9. Czako L, Yamamoto M, and Otsuki M. Exocrine pancreatic function in rats after acute pancreatitis. Pancreas 15: 83–90, 1997.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Czako L, Yamamoto M, and Otsuki M. Pancreatic fluid hypersecretion in rats after acute pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 42: 265–272, 1997.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  11. Deng X, Guarita DR, Pedroso MR, Wood PG, Kreiss C, Sved AF, and Whitcomb DC. Area postrema lesion alters the effects of peptide YY on 2-DG-stimulated pancreatic exocrine secretion. Dig Dis Sci 46: 2460–2469, 2001.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  12. De Waele B, de Smul A, Wissocq P, and Kiekens R. La secretion pancreatique chez le rat. Influence de l'intervention chirurgicale, de la narcose, de l'hypothermie et de la derivation du suc gastrique ou du suc pancreatique. Biol Gastroenterol (Paris) 7: 253–263, 1974.[Medline]
  13. Eberlein GA, Eysselein VE, Hesse WH, Goebell H, Schaefer M, and Reeve JR Jr. Detection of cholecystokinin-58 in human blood by inhibition of degradation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 253: G477–G482, 1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Folsch UR and Creutzfeldt W. Pancreatic duct cells in rats: secretory studies in response to secretin, cholecystokinin-pancreozymin, and gastrin in vivo. Gastroenterology 73: 1053–1059, 1977.[ISI][Medline]
  15. Folsch UR, Schafmayer A, Ebert R, Becker HD, and Creutzfeldt W. Elevated plasma cholecystokinin concentrations in exocrine pancreatic atrophy in the rat. Digestion 29: 60–64, 1984.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  16. Fowler J, Cohen L, and Jarvis P. Practical Statistics for Field Biology. New York: Wiley, 1998.
  17. Fuller CM, Ji HL, Tousson AM, Elble RC, Pauli BU, and Benos DJ. Ca2+-activated Cl channels: a newly emerging anion transport family. Pflügers Arch 443: S107–S110, 2001.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  18. Fuxe K, Agnati LF, Vanderhaeghen JJ, Tatemoto K, Andersson K, Eneroth P, Harfstrand A, Von Euler G, Toni R, Goldstein M, and Mutt V. Cholecystokinin neuron systems and their interactions with the presynaptic features of the dopamine neuron systems. A morphometric and neurochemical analysis involving studies on the action of cholecystokinin-8 and cholecystokinin-58. Ann NY Acad Sci 448: 231–254, 1985.[Abstract]
  19. Gorelick FS, Adler G, and Kern HF. Cerulein-induced pancreatitis. In: The Pancreas: Biology, Pathobiology, and Disease (2nd ed.), edited by Go VL, DiMagno EP, Gardner JD, Lebenthal E, Reber HA, and Scheele GA. New York: Raven, 1993, p. 501–526.
  20. Green GM. Feedback inhibition of cholecystokinin secretion by bile acids and pancreatic proteases. In: Cholecystokinin, edited by Reeve JR Jr, Eysselein V, Solomon TE, and Go VLW. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994, p. 167–179.
  21. Green GM and Miyasaka K. Rat pancreatic response to intestinal infusion of intact and hydrolyzed protein. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 245: G394–G398, 1983.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Green GM and Nasset ES. Role of dietary protein in rat pancreatic enzyme secretory response to a meal. J Nutr 113: 2245–2252, 1983.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Guan D, Phillips WT, and Green GM. Pancreatic secretion stimulated by CCK is not mediated by capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferent pathway in awake rats. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 270: G881–G886, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Guan D, Spannagel A, Ohta H, Nakano I, Chey WY, and Green GM. Role of secretin in basal and fat-stimulated pancreatic secretion in conscious rats. Endocrinology 128: 979–982, 1991.[Abstract]
  25. Harmer AR, Smith PM, and Gallacher DV. Local and global calcium signals and fluid and electrolyte secretion in mouse submandibular acinar cells. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 288: G118–G124, 2005.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Ho JJ and Rothman SS. Nature of flow dependence of protein secretion by the exocrine pancreas. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 242: G32–G39, 1982.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Hoffmann P, Eberlein GA, Reeve JR Jr, Bunte RH, Grandt D, Goebell H, and Eysselein VE. Comparison of clearance and metabolism of infused cholecystokinins 8 and 58 in dogs. Gastroenterology 105: 1732–1736, 1993.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Isenman LD and Rothman SS. Diffusion-like processes can account for protein secretion by the pancreas. Science 204: 1212–1215, 1979.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Jensen RT and Gardner JD. Identification and characterization of receptors for secretagogues on pancreatic acinar cells. Fed Proc 40: 2486–2496, 1981.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Jin W and Green GM. Circulating ethanol does not stimulate pancreatic secretion in conscious rats. Pancreas 27: e90–e95, 2003.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  31. Johnson LR. Pancreatic Secretion. In: Gastrointestinal Physiology (6th ed.), edited by Johnson LR. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 2001, p. 95–106.
  32. Laugier R, Papp A, Demol P, Charbit JJ, and Sarles H. Pancreatic secretory response to cholecystokinin-pancreozymin and caerulein in the conscious rat. Pflügers Arch 384: 83–92, 1980.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  33. Levan VH and Green GM. Effect of atropine on rat pancreatic secretory response to trypsin inhibitors and protein. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 251: G64–G69, 1986.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Li P, Chang TM, and Chey WY. Neuronal regulation of the release and action of secretin-releasing peptide and secretin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 269: G305–G312, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Lim RKS, Ling SM, Liu AC, and Yuan IC. Quantitative relationships between the basic and other components of the pancreatic secretion. Chin J Physiol 10: 475–492, 1936.
  36. Miyasaka K and Green GM. Effect of partial exclusion of pancreatic juice on rat basal pancreatic secretion. Gastroenterology 86: 114–119, 1984.[ISI][Medline]
  37. Miyasaka K and Kitani K. Aging and pancreatic exocrine function: studies in conscious male rats. Pancreas 2: 523–530, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
  38. Oates PS and Morgan RG. Pancreatic response of anaesthetized and conscious rats to bolus injection of cholecystokinin-pancreozymin. Aust J Biol Sci 34: 283–293, 1981.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Oates PS and Morgan RG. Pancreatic response to bolus injection of cholecystokinin-pancreozymin in anaesthetized and conscious rats fed raw soyaflour. Aust J Biol Sci 35: 505–515, 1982.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Pap A, Lechene de la Porte P, and Sarles H. Exogenous and endogenous stimulations during different phases of pancreatic secretion in conscious rats. Pflügers Arch 383: 19–27, 1979.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  41. Pap A and Sarles H. Effect of atropine on pancreatic secretion in conscious rats. Digestion 33: 17–25, 1986.[ISI][Medline]
  42. Park MK, Lomax RB, Tepikin AV, and Petersen OH. Local uncaging of caged Ca2+ reveals distribution of Ca2+-activated Cl channels in pancreatic acinar cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 10948–10953, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Petersen CC, Toescu EC, and Petersen OH. Different patterns of receptor-activated cytoplasmic Ca2+ oscillations in single pancreatic acinar cells: dependence on receptor type, agonist concentration and intracellular Ca2+ buffering. EMBO J 10: 527–533, 1991.[Abstract]
  44. Petersen H and Grossman MI. Pancreatic exocrine secretion in anesthetized and conscious rats. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Gastrointest Physiol 233: E530–E536, 1977.[Free Full Text]
  45. Petersen OH. Cation channels: homing in on the elusive CAN channels. Curr Biol 12: R520–R522, 2002.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  46. Petersen OH, Petersen CC, and Kasai H. Calcium and hormone action. Annu Rev Physiol 56: 297–319, 1994.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  47. Poulsen JH, Fischer H, Illek B, and Machen TE. Bicarbonate conductance and pH regulatory capability of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 5340–5344, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Reeve JR Jr, Green GM, Chew P, Eysselein VE, and Keire DA. CCK-58 is the only detectable endocrine form of cholecystokinin in rat. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 285: G255–G265, 2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Reeve JR Jr, Wu SV, Keire DA, Faull K, Chew P, Solomon TE, Green GM, and Coskun T. Differential bile-pancreatic secretory effects of CCK-58 and CCK-8. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 286: G395–G402, 2004.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Reid CJ, Hyde K, Ho SB, and Harris A. Cystic fibrosis of the pancreas: involvement of MUC6 mucin in obstruction of pancreatic ducts. Mol Med 3: 403–411, 1997.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  51. Rhee JC, Chang TM, Lee KY, Jo YH, and Chey WY. Mechanism of oleic acid-induced inhibition on gastric acid secretion in rats. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 260: G564–G570, 1991.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  52. Rothman SS. Pancreatic insufficiency in cystic fibrosis. Gastroenterology 111: 833, 1996.[ISI][Medline]
  53. Sarles H. Alcohol and the pancreas. Ann NY Acad Sci 252: 171–182, 1975.[ISI][Medline]
  54. Shales O and Shales SS. A simple and accurate method for the determination of chloride in biological fluid. J Biol Chem 140: 879–884, 1941.
  55. Smith JP, Yelamarty RV, Kramer ST, and Cheung JY. Effects of cholecystokinin on cytosolic calcium in pancreatic duct segments and ductal cells. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 264: G1177–G1183, 1993.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Soll AH and Berglindh T. Receptors that regulate gastric acid-secretory function. In: Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract (3rd ed.), edited by Johnson LR. New York: Raven, 1994, p. 1139–1169.
  57. Solomon TE. Control of exocrine pancreatic secretion. In: Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract, edited by Johnson LR. New York: Raven, 1986, p. 1173–1207.
  58. Solomon TE, Varga G, Zeng N, Wu SV, Walsh JH, and Reeve JR Jr. Different actions of secretin and Gly-extended secretin predict secretin receptor subtypes. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 280: G88–G94, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Solomon TE, Yamada T, Elashoff J, Wood J, and Beglinger C. Bioactivity of cholecystokinin analogues: CCK-8 is not more potent than CCK-33. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 247: G105–G111, 1984.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Spannagel AW, Nakano I, Tawil T, Chey WY, Liddle RA, and Green GM. Adaptation to fat markedly increases pancreatic secretory response to intraduodenal fat in rats. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 270: G128–G135, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Susini C, Estival A, Scemama JL, Ruellan C, Vaysse N, Clemente F, Esteve JP, Fourmy D, and Ribet A. Studies on human pancreatic acini: action of secretagogues on amylase release and cellular cyclic AMP accumulation. Pancreas 1: 124–129, 1986.[Medline]
  62. Taguchi S, Green GM, Nakano I, and Hatta Y. Inhibitory effects of the cholecystokinin antagonist loxiglumide on pancreatic exocrine secretion and pancreatic growth in conscious rats. Int J Pancreatol 11: 67–73, 1992.[ISI][Medline]
  63. Takacs T, Nagy I, Pap A, and Varro V. The anti-CCK effect of glutaramic acid derivatives in anesthetized and conscious rats. Pancreas 3: 465–470, 1988.[ISI][Medline]
  64. Tatemoto K, Jornvall H, Siimesmaa S, Hallden G, and Mutt V. Isolation and characterization of cholecystokinin-58 (CCK-58) from porcine brain. FEBS Lett 174: 289–293, 1984.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  65. Townend J. Practical Statistics for Environmental and Biological Scientists. New York: Wiley, 2002.
  66. Ulrich CD II, Wood P, Hadac EM, Kopras E, Whitcomb DC, and Miller LJ. Cellular distribution of secretin receptor expression in rat pancreas. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 275: G1437–G1444, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  67. Vajanaphanich M, Schultz C, Tsien RY, Traynor-Kaplan AE, Pandol SJ, and Barrett KE. Cross-talk between calcium and cAMP-dependent intracellular signaling pathways. Implications for synergistic secretion in T84 colonic epithelial cells and rat pancreatic acinar cells. J Clin Invest 96: 386–393, 1995.[ISI][Medline]
  68. Watanabe S, Takeuchi T, and Chey WY. Mediation of trypsin inhibitor-induced pancreatic hypersecretion by secretin and cholecystokinin in rats. Gastroenterology 102: 621–628, 1992.[ISI][Medline]
  69. Whitcomb DC. Pancreatic bicarbonate secretion: The role of CFTR and the sodium-bicarbonate cotransporter. Gastroenterology 117: 275–277, 1999.[Medline]
  70. Whitcomb DC, Curtis ET, Huh YB, Spannagel A, and Sved A. The effect of urethane anesthetic on basal pancreatic secretion in the rat after acute and chronic pancreatic duct cannulation (Abstract). Gastroenterology 108: A401, 1995.
  71. Yamamoto M, Reeve JR Jr, and Green GM. CCK58 and pancreatitis: Enhanced pancreatic fluid secretion by CCK58 minimizes pancreatic injury in response to supramaximal stimulation (Abstract). Pancreas 19: 443, 1999.
  72. Yamamoto M, Shirohara H, and Otsuki M. CCK-, secretin-, and cholinergic-independent pancreatic fluid hypersecretion in protease inhibitor-treated rats. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 274: G406–G412, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  73. Zeng W, Lee MG, Yan M, Diaz J, Benjamin I, Marino CR, Kopito R, Freedman S, Cotton C, Muallem S, and Thomas P. Immuno and functional characterization of CFTR in submandibular and pancreatic acinar and duct cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 273: C442–C455, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
288/5/G866    most recent
00389.2003v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Citation Map
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Google Scholar
Articles by Yamamoto, M.
Articles by Green, G. M.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Yamamoto, M.
Articles by Green, G. M.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the American Physiological Society.