Sucralfate pp 111-126 | Cite as

Effect on Gastric Surfactant

  • Brian A. Hills


Sucralfate is unique among pharmaceutical approaches to peptic ulceration in that it binds to the ulcer site as described in more detail in Chapter 10. However, the binding of a protective agent to the surface it protects has been exploited in the protection of nonbiological surfaces since ancient man first put bear grease on his spears to stop them from rusting. The same principle is retained in modern-day corrosion inhibitors which are surfactants that function by coating the surfaces they protect by a process known in the physical sciences as adsorption, 1 the deposited lining often rendering the surface hydro- phobic. This aspect has led to the realization2 that many corrosion inhibitors closely resemble the highly surface-active disaturated phosphatidylcholine (DSPC) found in the lung where there is increasing evidence3 for its binding to the alveolar mucosa in addi- tion to its more traditional role of reducing surface tension. In this chapter we pursue the mounting body of evidence supporting the concept of endogenous gastric surfactant providing the gastric mucosal barrier and review the capability of sucralfate to compensate for any deficiency.


Contact Angle Corrosion Inhibitor Lamellar Body Gastric Mucus Luminal Lining 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adamson AW: Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, ed 2. New York, John Wiley &0026; Sons, 1967.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hills BA: What is the true role of surfactant in the lung? Thorax 36:1–4, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hills BA: The Biology of Surfactant. London, Cambridge University Press, 1988. References 1–3 provide a general background in surfactants in general (No. 1) and pulmonary surfactant (Nos. 2 and 3), including an outline of its possible roles in many organs (No. 3).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davenport HW: The Gastric Mucosal Barrier—A Swan Song. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davenport HW: Destruction of the gastric mucosal barrier by detergents and urea. Gastroenterology 54:175–181,1968. References 4 and 5 refer to the classical physiological studies of Davenport which led him to propose the “gastric mucosal barrier” as a physical barrier.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fromm D: Gastric mucosal barrier, in Johnson LR (ed): Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. New York, Raven Press, 1981, pp 733–748.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hills BA: A physical identity for the gastric mucosal barrier. Med J Aus 153:76–81, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen A: Gastrointestinal mucus, in Schultz SG, Forte JG, Rauner BB (eds): Handbook of Physiology. Washington, DC, American Physiological Society, 1989, sect 6, vol III, pp 359–382. Reference 6 is one of the best reviews of the various theories of gastric mucosal protection while No. 8 is selected as a good recent review of gastric mucus and its role in cytoprotection.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hills BA, Barrow RE: The contact angle induced by DPL at pulmonary epithelial surfaces. Respir Physiol 38:173–183, 1979. The first evidence for the adsorption (direct bonding) of surfactant to any epithelial surface is given in No. 9, while specific ultrastructural evidence for a surfactant lining within gastric mucosa is presented in No. 7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hills BA, Butler BD, Lichtenberger LM: Gastric mucosal barrier Hydrophobic lining to the lumen of the stomach. Am J Physiol 7:G651–G658, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lichtenberger LM, Richards JE, Hills BA: Effects of prostaglandin PGE2 on the surface hydrophobicity of aspirin-treated canine gastric mucosa. Gastroenterology 88:308–314, 1985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hills BA: Gastric mucosal barrier: Stabilization of hydrophobic lining to the stomach by mucus. Am J Physiol 244:G561–G568, 1985. The physiological evidence for a mucosal barrier of gastric surfactant is presented in Nos. 10–12, including the telltale hydrophobicity which led to its discovery (No. 10).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalina M, Pease DC: The preservation of ultrastructure saturated in phosphatidyl cholines by tannic acid in model systems and type II pneumocytes. J Cell Biol 74:726–741, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ueda S, Kawamura K, Ishii N, et al: Morphological studies on surface lining layer of the lungs. Part VI. Surfactant-like substance in other organs (pleural cavity, vascular lumen and gastric lumen) than lungs. Jpn Med Soc Biol Interface 17:132–156, 1986. References 13 and 14 refer to the special fixation procedures which are needed in order to visualize oligolamellar layers of surfactant by electron microscopy, indicating why this barrier was not discovered in earlier ultrastructural studies.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hills BA: A mucosal barrier of gastric surfactant identified on the human stomach. Aus NZ Med J 22:441–444, 1992. This paper describes morphological evidence for a mucosal barrier of gastric surfactant in human tissue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slomiany A, Slomiany BL, Horowitz MI: Studies in changes in lipid profiles of the rat gastric mucosa with stress ulcers. Clin Chim Acta 59:215–216, 1975. This paper acknowledges earlier work demonstrating an effect of phospholipids in enhancing the resistance of mucus to the transmission of acid.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hills BA: A common physical basis for the gastric mucosal barrier and the action of sucralfate. Am J Med 91(2A):43S–51S, 1991. This paper demonstrates how the mucus barrier would appear to be provided by the intergranular matrix of gastric surfactant. It also demonstrates the surface activity of sucralfate and how it is more surface active as the aluminum salt.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raedsch R, Stiehl A, Phol S, et al: Quantification of phospholipase A2 activity of Campylobacter pylori. Gastroenterology 89:A478, 1989.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hills BA: Gastric mucosal barrier: Evidence for Helicobacter pylori ingesting gastric surfactant and deriving protection from it. Gut 34:588–593, 1993. References 18 and 19 are included to demonstrate how the Helicobacter story fits in with the model of the gastric surfactant barrier as H. pylori ingest surfactant (No. 19) and produce the enzymes to digest it (No. 18).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hills BA, Kirwood CA: Gastric mucosal barrier: Barrier to hydrogen ions imparted by gastric surfactant in vitro. Gut 33:1039–1041, 1992. This paper describes direct in vitro evidence for surface-active phospholipid acting as a barrier to acid.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Szelenyi I, Engler H: Cytoprotective role of gastric surfactant in the ethanol-produced gastric mucosal injury in the rat. Pharmacology 33:199–205, 1986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hills BA, Kirwood CA: Surfactant approach to the gastric mucosal barrier: Protection of rats by banana even when acidified. Gastroenterology 97:294–303, 1989. References 21 and 22 refer to the prophylactic use of gastric surfactant in preventing gastric ulcer.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian A. Hills
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysiologyUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations