Table 2.
Effect of inhibitors of second-messenger pathways on the inosine-mediated effect
| Solution values | MEPP frequency (% of control values) | EPP amplitude (% of control) |
|---|---|---|
| H-89 | 101.8 ± 5.0 (n = 4) | 92.9 ± 0.9 (n = 4) |
| H-89 + inosine | 67.9 ± 5.0 (n = 4)*** | 63.4 ± 2.4 (n = 4)*** |
| KT-5720 | 98.4 ± 2.4 (n = 3) | |
| KT-5720 + inosine | 66.4 ± 4.8 (n = 3)*** | |
| Chelerythrine | 102.7 ± 9.3 (n = 4) | 102.9 ± 9.8 (n = 4) |
| Chelerythrine + inosine | 105.9 ± 10.7 (n = 4) | 109.3 ± 9.2 (n = 4) |
| Inosine | 65.5 ± 5.7 (n = 3)*** | |
| Inosine + chelerythrine | 93.9 ± 1.5 (n = 3) | |
| W-7 | 97.8 ± 1.7 (n = 4) | 107.4 ± 9.1 (n = 4) |
| W-7 + inosine | 97.6 ± 7.5 (n = 4) | 101.4 ± 8.9 (n = 4) |
| KN-62 | 104.4 ± 7.9 (n = 4) | 104.3 ± 7.5 (n = 6) |
| KN-62 + inosine | 68.0 ± 4.9 (n = 4)** | 67.9 ± 8.1 (n = 6)** |
***
P < 0.001 and
**
P < 0.01 versus control values and the inhibitor without inosine.
anova followed by Tukey's test.