» Articles » PMID: 1473434

Effect of Sucralfate on Components of Mucosal Barrier Produced by Cultured Canine Epithelial Cells in Vitro

Overview
Journal Dig Dis Sci
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 1992 Dec 1
PMID 1473434
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The mucous gel maintains a neutral microclimate at the epithelial cell surface, which may play a role in both the prevention of gastroduodenal injury and the provision of an environment essential for epithelial restitution and regeneration after injury. Enhancement of the components of the mucous barrier by sucralfate may explain its therapeutic efficacy for upper gastrointestinal tract protection, repair, and healing. We studied the effect of sucralfate and its major soluble component, sucrose octasulfate (SOS), on the synthesis and release of gastric mucin and surface active phospholipid, utilizing an isolated canine gastric mucous cells in culture. We correlated these results with the effect of the agents on mucin synthesis and secretion utilizing explants of canine fundus in vitro. Sucralfate and SOS significantly stimulated phospholipid secretion by isolated canine mucous cells in culture (123% and 112% of control, respectively). Indomethacin pretreatment significantly inhibited the effect of sucralfate, but not SOS, on the stimulation of phospholipid release. Administration of either sucralfate or SOS to the isolated canine mucous cells had no effect upon mucin synthesis or secretion using a sensitive immunoassay. Sucralfate and SOS did not stimulate mucin release in the canine explants; sucralfate significantly stimulated the synthesis of mucin, but only to 108% of that observed in untreated explants. No increase in PGE2 release was observed after sucralfate or SOS exposure to the isolated canine mucous cells. Our results suggest sucralfate affects the mucous barrier largely in a qualitative manner. No increase in mucin secretion or major effect on synthesis was noted, although a significant increase in surface active phospholipid release was observed.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Citing Articles

EVALUATION OF ENEMAS CONTAINING SUCRALFATE IN TISSUE CONTENT OF MUC-2 PROTEIN IN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL OF DIVERSION COLITIS.

Fernandez O, Pereira J, Campos F, Araya C, Marinho G, de Souza Novo R Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2018; 31(3):e1391.

PMID: 30133683 PMC: 6097158. DOI: 10.1590/0102-672020180001e1391.


EVALUATION OF ENEMAS CONTAINING SUCRALFATE IN TISSUE CONTENT OF MUC-2 PROTEIN IN EXPERIMENTAL MODEL OF DIVERSION COLITIS.

Fernandez O, Pereira J, Campos F, Araya C, Marinho G, de Souza Novo R Arq Bras Cir Dig. 2017; 30(2):132-138.

PMID: 29257850 PMC: 5543793. DOI: 10.1590/0102-6720201700020012.


Acute vomiting in cats: rational treatment selection.

Trepanier L J Feline Med Surg. 2010; 12(3):225-30.

PMID: 20193913 PMC: 10829162. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfms.2010.01.005.


Stimulatory effects of sucralfate on secretion and synthesis of mucus by rabbit gastric mucosal cells. Involvement of phospholipase C.

Takahashi S, Okabe S Dig Dis Sci. 1996; 41(3):498-504.

PMID: 8617122 DOI: 10.1007/BF02282325.

References
1.
Boland C, KRAUS E, Scheiman J, Black C, Deshmukh G, DOBBINS 3rd W . Characterization of mucous cell synthetic functions in a new primary canine gastric mucous cell culture system. Am J Physiol. 1990; 258(5 Pt 1):G774-87. DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.1990.258.5.G774. View

2.
Hills B . A common physical basis for the gastric mucosal barrier and the action of sucralfate. Am J Med. 1991; 91(2A):43S-51S. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9343(91)90450-c. View

3.
Miller T . Gastroduodenal mucosal defense: factors responsible for the ability of the stomach and duodenum to resist injury. Surgery. 1988; 103(4):389-97. View

4.
Mantle M, FORSTNER G, Forstner J . Antigenic and structural features of goblet-cell mucin of human small intestine. Biochem J. 1984; 217(1):159-67. PMC: 1153193. DOI: 10.1042/bj2170159. View

5.
Shea-Donohue T, Steel L, Montcalm E, Dubois A . Gastric protection by sucralfate. Role of mucus and prostaglandins. Gastroenterology. 1986; 91(3):660-6. DOI: 10.1016/0016-5085(86)90636-0. View