Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Journal of Physiology logoLink to The Journal of Physiology
. 2016 Feb 3;594(6):1511–1513. doi: 10.1113/JP271587

CrossTalk opposing view: Interstitial cells are not involved and physiologically important in neuromuscular transmission in the gut

Raj K Goyal 1
PMCID: PMC4739872  PMID: 26842563

In the gut, smooth muscle bundles are separated by intramuscular spaces containing nerve fibres and interstitial cells including intramuscular interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC‐IM), a subset of a family of ICC (Komuro 2006). Traditionally, smooth muscle cells (SMCs) are believed to transduce the action of neurotransmitters that cause muscle contraction or relaxation by a process called direct neuromuscular transmission (NMT). Neuro‐ICC‐IM and neuro‐smooth muscle (SM) transmissions regulate functions of ICC and SMCs, respectively. Initially proposed by Imaizumi & Hanna (1969), Sanders and colleagues championed the idea that the smooth muscle responses to nerve stimulation required mandatory transduction by the ICC‐IM (indirect NMT) (Burns et al. 1996; Ward et al. 2000). The role of the smooth muscles was considered simply to mount mechanical contraction or relaxation in response to electrical signals transduced in ICC‐IM. It has also been suggested that both ICC‐IM and SMCs transduced neural signals to the smooth muscle. According to one view, ICC‐IM is involved only in certain situations (direct or indirect NMT) (Bhetwal et al. 2013; Klein et al. 2013). According to another, ICC‐IM is involved in parallel with smooth muscles (direct and indirect NMT) (Groneberg et al. 2013). However, most of the available data continue to support the traditional view of direct NMT, not requiring ICC‐IM (Goyal & Chaudhury 2010) (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Proposed models of involvement of intramuscular interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC‐IM) in NMT in the gut and experimental results supporting them

Involvement of ICC‐IM in NMT
None Mandatory Optional Complementary
Type of NMT Direct Indirect Direct or indirect (situational) Direct and indirect (dual)
Proposers Traditional Burn et al. 1996; Ward et al. 2000 Klein et al. 2013; Bhetwal et al. 2013 Groneberg et al. 2013
Neurotransmitters involved All transmitters Nitrergic and cholinergic Nitrergic and cholinergic Nitrergic only
Lack of evidence for true synaptic innervation of the ICC‐IM* Consistent Against Against Consistent
Evidence for direct innervation of SM* Consistent Against Against Consistent
Evidence for the presence of functional signalling molecules in SM* Consistent Against Consistent Consistent
Lack of evidence for effective conduction from ICC‐IM to SM via gap junctions* Consistent Against Against Against
Origin of nitrergic inhibitory junction potential in SM* Consistent Against Against Consistent
Preserved nitrergic NMT in ICC deficiency* Consistent Against Consistent Consistent
Loss of nitrergic inhibition with presumed deletion of NO‐GC from ICC* Against? Consistent Against Consistent
Preserved cholinergic NMT in ICC deficiency* Consistent Against Against Consistent
Open in a new tab

*See text for discussion of the evidence.

The traditional model: direct NMT

The direct NMT is supported by the following: (1) close synapse‐like contacts of motor nerve varicosities with smooth muscles (Komuro 2012), (2) the presence of nitrergic and cholinergic signalling molecules in the smooth muscles (Bhetwal et al. 2013; Cobine et al. 2014; Lies et al. 2014 a), (3) the presence of nitrergic and cholinergic signalling in the smooth muscles (Wang et al. 1996; Zhang et al. 1998), (4) expected effects of agonists of neurotransmitters in isolated smooth muscle (Wang et al. 1996; Zhang et al. 1998), and (5) demonstration of active generation of nitrergic inhibitory junction potential in the SMC (He & Goyal 2012).

Mandatory role of ICC‐IM: indirect NMT

An assumed lack of direct NMT led to the conclusion of a mandatory role of ICC‐IM in nitrergic NMT. This conclusion was supported by the following: (1) an assumed lack of direct innervation of smooth muscle and presence of exclusive close synaptic contacts of nerve varicosities with ICC‐IM (Sanders et al. 2014 a), (2) the abundance of the nitric oxide sensitive‐guanylate cyclase (NO‐GC) in ICC‐IM but not in smooth muscle (Lies et al. 2014 a), and (3) the reported loss of nitrergic NMT in ICC‐IM‐deficient W/Wv mice (Burns et al. 1996). The mandatory role of cholinergic transmission was based on the reported loss of cholinergic NMT in ICC‐IM deficiency (Ward et al. 2000; Klein et al. 2013).

However, as summarized below, there is substantial evidence against the mandatory role of the ICC in nitrergic NMT.

First, close synapse‐like junctions between the nerves and ICC are also present between the nerves and the smooth muscles (Mitsui & Komuro 2002). However, true synapses with a synaptic cavity are present at neither neuro‐ICC nor neuro‐smooth muscle junctions (Komuro 2012).

Second, a key assumption in the model of the role of ICC‐IM in NMT is that the gap junctions conduct electrical potentials from ICC‐IM to smooth muscles (Sanders et al. 2014 a). Although gap junctions have been identified, their functional efficiency in conducting electrical signals has been shown to be poor (Sibave et al. 2006; Daniel et al. 2007).

Third, NO‐GC is present in the smooth muscle, ICC and PDGFRα+ fibroblast‐like cells and abundance of NO‐GC does not correlate with greater function. PDGFRα+ fibroblast‐like cells have the highest concentration of NO‐GC, yet they do not participate in NMT (Cobine et al. 2014; Lies et al. 2014 a).

Forth, several studies have reported that nitrergic inhibitory junction potential (IJP) and smooth muscle relaxation are preserved in ICC‐IM‐deficient W/Wv mice and Ws/Ws rats (Sivarao et al., 2001, 2008; Huizinga et al. 2008; Zhang et al. 2010). Most recently, Sanders and colleagues (2014 b) suggested that the discrepant results may be due to an incomplete loss of ICC in the interrogated tissues. They reported that complete absence of ICC‐IM was required for a loss of nitrergic relaxation. However, in the absence of ICC‐IM, there is no barrier between neurally released neurotransmitter and SMCs, leaving direct NMT intact (Bhetwal et al. 2013; Klein et al. 2013). Therefore, the report of loss of nitrergic neurotransmission in the absence of ICC in W/Wv mice (Sanders 2014 b) is difficult to reconcile.

Evidence against a mandatory role of the ICC cholinergic NMT is the failure to reproduce the reported loss of cholinergic NMT in W/Wv mice (Ward et al. 2000; Zhang et al. 2011; Bhetwal 2013; Goyal 2013).

Optional role of ICC‐IM: direct or indirect NMT

Klein et al. (2013) reported that ‘ICC‐specific’ deletion of protein kinase G1 (Prkg1) abolished nitrergic NMT, but deletion of ICC left nitrergic neurotransmission intact. To explain these paradoxical findings the authors made an intriguing proposal, that when present ICC‐IM are involved in NMT, but when ICC‐IM is absent, direct NMT takes place. This model was based on the presence of assumed true neuro‐ICC‐IM synapses that can restrict the accessibility of the released nitric oxide (NO) to the smooth muscle (Beckett et al. 2005). However, no true synapses have been identified between ICC and smooth muscles (Komuro 2012; Goyal & Chaudhury 2013). Moreover, NO is a highly diffusible gas (diffusion constant 3300 μ2 s−1) (Lancaster 1997). Therefore, ICC‐IM cannot restrict it to having effects on adjacent smooth muscles. A similar unsubstantiated model was used to explain the persistence of cholinergic responses in W/Wv mice (Bhetwal et al. 2013; Goyal 2013).

Complementary role of ICC‐IM: direct and indirect NMT

For nitrergic NMT, Groneberg and colleagues (2013) reported that cell‐specific knockdown of NO‐GC in SMCs or ICC did not affect nitrergic relaxation. However, double knockdown of NO‐GC in both SMCs and ICC abolished nitrergic NMT (Groneberg et al. 2013). Other studies have reported that incomplete deletion of NO‐GC in ICC results in a dominant loss of nitrergic relaxation (Lies et al. 2014 b; Groneberg et al. 2015). Moreover, Klein et al. 2013 has reported that partial deletion of Prkg1 abolishes nitrergic NMT, but partial deletion of ICC does not (Klein et al. 2013). It is not clear why incomplete deletion of NO‐GC has a more profound effect on nitrergic NMT than incomplete deletion of ICC. It is possible that cKIT‐CreERT2 mutants may also affect NO‐GC in smooth muscles. Validation studies using immunohistochemistry are not sensitive enough to reveal changes in NO‐GC in smooth muscles (Groneberg et al. 2015). Finally, a complementary role of ICC in NMT is difficult to comprehend in the absence of a functional gap junction that can transmit signals from the ICC to SMC (Sibave et al. 2006; Daniel et al. 2007). A complementary role of cholinergic NMT is also speculated but without any experimental data to support it (Groneberg et al. 2015).

Conclusion

Overall, available evidence is most consistent with the traditional model of direct NMT without the involvement of ICC‐IM. Parallel neuro‐ICC and neuro‐SM transmissions may independently regulate the functions of the ICC‐IM and SMCs, respectively. There is little evidence for an obligatory or optional involvement of ICC‐IM in NMT. A complementary role and physiological importance of ICC‐IM in nitrergic NMT remain speculative. Moreover, it is unlikely that ICC‐IM would only be involved in nitrergic NMT while a variety of other neurotransmitters will use direct NMT.

Call for comments

Readers are invited to give their views on this and the accompanying CrossTalk articles in this issue by submitting a brief (250 word) comment. Comments may be submitted up to 6 weeks after publication of the article, at which point the discussion will close and the CrossTalk authors will be invited to submit a ‘Last Word’. Please email your comment, including a title and a declaration of interest, to jphysiol@physoc.org. Comments will be moderated and accepted comments will be published online only as ‘supporting information’ to the original debate articles once discussion has closed.

Additional information

Competing interests

None declared.

Biography

Raj K. Goyal, MD is Mallinckrodt Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. He has served as Chief of Gastroenterology at Beth Israel Hospital, Boston and then as Associate Chief of Research and Development at Boston VA Medical Center, Boston where he is currently serving as Staff Physician. He is a former Editor‐in‐Chief, Gastroenterology. He has been studying physiology and pathophysiology of oesophageal and gastric motility. He has elucidated the nature of enteric neuromuscular transmission, particularly the role of intracellular myosin motors in neurotransmission and models of achalasia and diabetic gastroparesis.

graphic file with name TJP-594-1511-g001.gif

References

  1. Beckett EA, Takeda Y, Yanase H, Sanders KM & Ward SM (2005). Synaptic specializations exist between enteric motor nerves and interstitial cells of Cajal in the murine stomach. J Comp Neurol 493, 193–206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bhetwal BP, Sanders KM, Trappanese DM, Moreland RS & Perrino BA (2013). Ca2+ sensitization pathways accessed by cholinergic neurotransmission in the murine gastric fundus. J Physiol 591, 2971–2986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Burns AJ, Lomax AE, Torihashi S, Sanders KM & Ward SM (1996). Interstitial cells of Cajal mediate inhibitory neurotransmission in the stomach. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93, 12008–12013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cobine CA, Sotherton AG, Peri LE, Sanders KM, Ward SM & Keef KD (2014) Nitrergic neuromuscular transmission in the mouse internal anal sphincter is accomplished by multiple pathways and postjunctional effector cells. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 307, G1057–G1072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Daniel EE, Yazbi AE, Mannarino M, Galante G, Boddy G, Livergant J & Oskouei TE (2007). Do gap junctions play a role in nerve transmissions as well as pacing in mouse intestine? Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 292, G734–G745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goyal RK & Chaudhury A (2010). Mounting evidence against the role of ICC in neurotransmission to smooth muscle in the gut. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 298, G10–G13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Goyal RK & Chaudhury A (2013). Structure activity relationship of synaptic and junctional neurotransmission. Auton Neurosci 176, 11–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Goyal RK (2013). Revised role of interstitial cells of Cajal in cholinergic neurotransmission in the gut. J Physiol 591, 5413–5414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Groneberg D, Lies B, König P, Jäger R, Seidler B, Klein S, Saur D & Friebe A (2013). Cell‐specific deletion of nitric oxide‐sensitive guanylate cyclase reveals a dual pathway for nitrergic neuromuscular transmission in the murine fundus. Gastroenterology 145, 188–196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Groneberg D, Zizer E, Lies B, Seidler B, Saur D, Wagner M & Friebe A (2015). Dominant role of interstitial cells of Cajal in nitrergic relaxation of murine lower oesophageal sphincter. J Physiol 593, 403–414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. He XD & Goyal RK (2012). CaMKII inhibition hyperpolarizes membrane and blocks nitrergic IJP by closing a Cl− conductance in intestinal smooth muscle. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 303, G240–G246. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Huizinga JD, Liu LW, Fitzpatrick A, White E, Gill S, Wang XY, Zarate N, Krebs L, Choi C, Starret T, Dixit D & Ye J (2008). Deficiency of intramuscular ICC increases fundic muscle excitability but does not impede nitrergic innervation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 294, G589–G594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Imaizumi M & Hama K (1969). An electromicroscopic study on the interstitial cells of the gizzard in the love bird (Uronlonchu domestica). Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat 97, 351–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Klein S, Seidler B, Kettenberger A, Sibaev A, Rohn M, Feil R, Allescher HD, Vanderwinden JM, Hofmann F, Schemann M, Rad R, Storr MA, Schmid RM, Schneider G & Saur D (2013). Interstitial cells of Cajal integrate excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmission with intestinal slow‐ wave activity. Nat Commun 4, 1630. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Komuro T (2006). Structure and organization of interstitial cells of Cajal in the gastrointestinal tract. J Physiol 76, 653–658. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Komuro T (2012). Atlas of Interstitial Cells of Cajal in the Gastrointestinal Tract. Springer, Netherlands: [Google Scholar]
  17. Lancaster JR Jr (1997). A tutorial on the diffusibility and reactivity of free nitric oxide. Nitric Oxide 1, 18–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lies B, Gil V, Groneberg D, Seidler B, Saur D, Wischmeyer E, Jiménez M & Friebe A (2014. a). Interstitial cells of Cajal mediate nitrergic inhibitory neurotransmission in the murine gastrointestinal tract. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 307, G98–G106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lies B, Groneberg D & Friebe A (2014. b). Toward a better understanding of gastrointestinal nitrergic neuromuscular transmission. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26, 901–912. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Mitsui R & Komuro T (2002). Direct and indirect innervation of smooth muscle cells of rat stomach with special reference to the interstitial cells of Cajal. Cell Tissue Res 309, 219–227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sanders KM, Ward SM & Koh SD (2014. a). Interstitial cells: regulators of smooth muscle function. Physiol Rev 94, 859–907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Sanders KM, Salter AK, Hennig GW, Koh SD, Perrino BA, Ward SM & Baker SA (2014. b). Responses to enteric motor neurons in the gastric fundus of mice with reduced intramuscular interstitial cells of cajal. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 20, 171–184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Sibaev A, Yüce B, Schirra J, Göke B, Allescher HD & Storr M (2006). Are gap junctions truly involved in inhibitory neuromuscular interaction in mouse proximal colon? Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 33, 740–745. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Sivarao DV, Mashimo HL, Thatte HS & Goyal RK (2001). Lower esophageal sphincter is achalasic in nNOS− / − and hypotensive in W/Wv mutant mice. Gastroenterology 121, 34–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sivarao DV, Mashimo H & Goyal RK (2008). Pyloric sphincter dysfunction in nNOS− / − and W/Wv mutant mice: animal models of gastroparesis and duodenogastric reflux. Gastroenterology 135, 1258–1266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang Q, Akbarali HI, Hatakeyama N & Goyal RK (1996). Caffeine and carbachol induced chloride and cation currents in single opossum esophageal circular muscle cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 271, C1725–C1734. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ward SM, Beckett EA, Wang X, Baker F, Khoyi M & Sanders KM (2000). Interstitial cells of Cajal mediate cholinergic neurotransmission from enteric motor neurons. J Neurosci 20, 1393–1403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zhang RX, Wang XY, Chen D & Huizinga JD (2011). Role of interstitial cells of Cajal in the generation and modulation of motor activity induced by cholinergic neurotransmission in the stomach. Neurogastroenterol Motil 23, e356–e371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Zhang Y, Vogalis F & Goyal RK (1998). Nitric oxide suppresses a Ca2+‐stimulated Cl− current in smooth muscle cells of opossum esophagus. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 37, G886–G890. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Zhang Y, Carmichael SA, Wang XY, Huizinga JD & Paterson WG (2010). Neurotransmission in lower esophageal sphincter of W/Wv mutant mice. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 298, G14–G24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Physiological Society

RESOURCES