Prejunctional Actions of Neuromuscular Blocking Drugs

  • Ian G. Marshall
  • Chris Prior
  • John Dempster
  • Lijun Tian
Conference paper


The major action of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents is that they are competitive antagonists at the skeletal muscle postjunctional nicotinic receptor. In addition, they also block acetylcholine receptors in the autonomic nervous system, including muscarinic receptors at the sino-atrial node, and nicotinic receptors at ganglia. As well as blocking the muscle postjunctional nicotinic receptors, large concentrations can produce non-competitive block by occluding the endplate channel itself. The well-known phenomena of tetanic fade and train-of-four fade have been ascribed to a prejunctional action of the compounds. This is controversial. It has been argued that the prime prejunctional effect of, for example, tubocurarine, is to reduce transmitter mobilization. Others have argued that the prime effect is to increase release. This paper describes how different elements of our research effort over the years have led to a hypothesis that attempts to unify some of these apparently contradictory views.


Neuromuscular Blocking Neuromuscular Blocking Drug Quantal Release Nicotinic Antagonist Endplate Current 
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.
    Dale HH, Feldberg W, Vogt M. Release of acetylcholine at voluntary motor nerve endings. Journal of Physiology 1936; 86: 353–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lingle CJ, Steinbach JH. Neuromuscular blocking. agents. International Anesthesiology Clinics 1988; 26: 288–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glavinovic MI. Presynaptic action of curare. Journal of Physiology 1979; 290: 499–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Magleby KL, Pallotta BS, Terrar DA. The effect of (+)-tubocurarine on neuromuscular transmission during repetitive stimulation in the rat, mouse, and frog. Journal of Physiology 1981; 312: 97–113.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gibb AJ, Marshall IG. Pre- and post-junctional effects of tubocurarine and other nicotinic antagonists during repetitive stimulation in the rat. Journal of Physiology 1984; 351: 275–297.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bowman WC. Prejunctional and postjunctional cholinoceptors at the neuromuscular junction. Anaesthesia and Analgesia 1980; 59: 935–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson DF. Influence of presynaptic receptors on neuromuscular transmission in rat. American Journal of Physiology 1982; 242: C366–372.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hughes R, Chapple DJ. Effects of non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents on peripheral autonomic mechanisms in cats. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1976; 48: 59–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hughes R, Chapple DJ. The pharmacology of atracurium: a new competitive neuromuscular blocking agent. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1981; 53: 31–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Durant NN, Marshall IG, Savage DS, Nelson DJ, Sleigh T, Carlyle IC. The neuromuscular and autonomic blocking activities of pancuronium, Org NC45, and other pancuronium analogues, in the cat. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology 1979; 31: 831–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brittan RT, Levy GP, Tyers MB. The neuromuscular blocking action of 2-(4-phenylpiperidino) cyclohexanol (AH5183). European Journal of Pharmacology 1969; 8: 93–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marshall IG. A comparison between the blocking actions of 2-(4-phenylpiperidino) cyclohexanol (AH5183) and its n-methyl quaternary analogue (AH5954). British Journal of Pharmacology 1970; 40: 68–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marshall IG. Studies on the blocking action of 2-(4-phenylpiperidino) cyclohexanol (AH5183). British Journal of Pharmacology 1970; 38: 503–516.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Parsons SM, Koenigsberger R. Specific stimulated uptake of acetylcholine by Torpedo organ synaptic vesicles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 1980; 77: 6234–6238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall IG, Parsons SM. The vesicular acetylcholine transport system. Trends in Neuroscience 1987; 10: 174–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parsons SM, Prior C, Marshall IG. Acetylcholine transport, storage, and release. International Review of Neurobiology 1993; 35: 279–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Searl T, Prior C, Marshall IG. The effects of L-vesamicol, an inhibitor of vesicular acetylcholine uptake, on two populations of miniature end-plate currents at the snake neuromuscular junction. Neuroscience 1990; 35: 145–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Searl T, Prior C, Marshall IG. Acetylcholine recycling and release at rat motor nerve terminals studied using (-)-vesamicol and troxypyrrolium. Journal of Physiology 1991; 444: 99–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pemberton KE, Prior C, Marshall IG. The effects of vesamicol on trains of endplate currents and on focally recorded nerve terminal currents at mammalian neuromuscular junctions. British Journal of Pharmacology 1992; 105: 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tian L, Prior C, Marshall IG. Nicotinic antagonist-produced frequencydependent changes in acetylcholine release from rat motor nerve terminals. Journal of Physiology 1994; 476: 517–529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katz B, Miledi R. Transmitter leakage from motor nerve endings. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) 1977; 196: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian G. Marshall
    • 1
  • Chris Prior
    • 1
  • John Dempster
    • 1
  • Lijun Tian
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physiology and PharmacologyUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations