May 2003
Volume 44, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2003
Effect of Somatostatin and Galanin on Isolated Rabbit Iris Sphincter and Dilator Muscles
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • K. Yamaji
    Laboratory for Neuroinformatics, RIKEN Brain Science Institute, Wako, Japan
  • T. Yoshitomi
    Ophthalmology, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan
  • S. Usui
    Ophthalmology, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  K. Yamaji, None; T. Yoshitomi, None; S. Usui, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2003, Vol.44, 2243. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      K. Yamaji, T. Yoshitomi, S. Usui; Effect of Somatostatin and Galanin on Isolated Rabbit Iris Sphincter and Dilator Muscles . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2003;44(13):2243.

      Download citation file:

      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

  • Supplements

Abstract: : Purpose: Somatostatin and galanin have been localized in the iris. Because a variety of biologically active peptides modulate iris muscle contraction, we examined the effect of somatostatin and galanin on rabbit iris smooth muscles. Methods: Rabbit iris muscle preparations were mounted in an organ bath, and tension changes were recorded by an isometric transducer. Electric field stimulation (100 Hz, 0.3 msec in duration, 10V in strength) was applied through a pair of platinum plate electrodes. Results: The sphincter muscle response consisted of two components: a fast cholinergic component and slow substance P-ergic component. Both somatostatin and galanin attenuated the cholinergic component in a dose-dependent manner (from 0.3nM to 0.1µM) but had no effect on substance-P ergic responses. Galanin was more effective (attenuation of 41% at 0.1µM) compared with somatostatin (attenuation of 17% at 0.1µ M) in reducing the cholinergic response. Neither peptide affected the contraction induced by acetylcholine (1 mM). The dilator muscle response to field stimulation was not changed by either peptide, even at the highest concentrations we examined. Conclusions: Both somatostatin and galanin inhibited iris sphincter smooth muscle contraction due to electrical field stimulation but not direct acetylcholine stimulation. Therefore both peptides inhibited cholinergic transmission in the sphincter muscle, although the degree of inhibition by each was different. In contrast, neither peptide affected contraction of the dilator muscle. We conclude that somatostatin and/or galanin may induce mydriasis by attenuating cholinergic neurotransmitter release.

Keywords: iris • pupil • pharmacology 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.