Mechanisms underlying electrical and mechanical responses of the bovine retractor penis to inhibitory nerve stimulation and to an inhibitory extract.

The response of the bovine retractor penis (BRP) to stimulation of non-adrenergic, non-cholinergic (NANC) inhibitory nerves and to an inhibitory extract prepared from this muscle have been studied using intracellular microelectrode, sucrose gap and conventional mechanical recording techniques. Both inhibitory nerve stimulation and inhibitory extract hyperpolarized the membrane potential and relaxed spontaneous or guanethidine (3 X 10(-5) M)-induced tone. These effects were accompanied by an increase in membrane resistance. Following membrane potential displacement from an average value of -53 +/- 7 mV (n = 184; Byrne & Muir, 1984) inhibitory potentials to nerve stimulation were abolished at approximately -30 mV; there was no evidence of reversal. Displacement by inward hyperpolarizing current over the range -45 to -60 mV increased the inhibitory response to nerve stimulation and to inhibitory extract; at more negative potential values (above approximately -60 mV) the inhibitory potential decreased and was abolished (approximately -103 mV). There was no evidence of reversal. Removal of [K+]o reversibly reduced hyperpolarization to nerve stimulation and inhibitory extract. No enhancement was observed. Increasing the [K+]o to 20 mM reduced the inhibitory potential to nerve stimulation but this was restored by passive membrane hyperpolarization. Inhibitory potentials were obtained at membrane potential values exceeding that of the estimated EK (-49 mV). [Cl-]o-free or [Cl-]o-deficient solutions reduced and abolished (after some 20-25 min) the hyperpolarization produced by inhibitory nerve stimulation or inhibitory extract. The inhibitory potential amplitude following nerve stimulation was not restored by passive displacement of the membrane potential from -26 to -104 mV approximately. Ouabain (1-5 X 10(-5) M) reduced then (45-60 min later) abolished the inhibitory potential to nerve stimulation. The effects of this drug on the extract were not investigated. It is concluded that the inhibitory response to nerve stimulation and extract in the BRP may involve several ionic species. However, unlike that in gastrointestinal muscles the NANC response in the BRP is accompanied by an increased membrane resistance and does not primarily involve K+. The underlying mechanisms for the inhibitory response to both NANC nerve stimulation and inhibitory extract appear to be similar, compatible with the view that the latter may contain the inhibitory transmitter released from these nerves in this tissue.