Department of Physiology and Pharmacology of The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research.
J Exp Med. 1918 Jun 1;27(6):647-65. doi: 10.1084/jem.27.6.647.
After Blum's discovery of the production of glycosuria by the subcutaneous injection of adrenal extract, Herter has the merit of having found that injection of adrenalin into the peritoneal cavity also produces glycosuria; this is an undeniable fact. Concerning Herter's claim that intraperitoneal injection gives a higher degree of glycosuria than subcutaneous or intravenous injection, we offer no comment since we have made no observations on the glycosuric effect of subcutaneous injection of adrenalin, while we have made only three experiments by intraperitoneal injection. The most we can predicate on the basis of the present experiments is that intraperitoneal injection of adrenalin produces a somewhat higher degree of glycosuria than could be anticipated. However, in an earlier study carried out several years ago we arrived at the conception that the more slowly adrenalin was absorbed from the tissues into the circulation, the greater was its glycosuric effect; hence an intramuscular injection, which in its effect is nearly equal to that of an intravenous injection, induced a glycosuria definitely smaller than that set up by a similar dose administered subcutaneously. Unless the absorption from the peritoneal cavity is shown to be different from the absorption from subcutaneous injections, there could be no reason to assume that the glycosuric effect of intraperitoneal injection is much greater than that of subcutaneous injection. We might add that our former experiments do not support Herter's view that subcutaneous injection of adrenalin yields only slight degrees of glycosuria, because it is largely oxidized before entering the circulation. A difference exists in the effects upon blood pressure and upon sugar production, depending upon the mode of administration of adrenalin. With regard to the sugar production, a subcutaneous injection has a definitely greater effect than an intravenous injection; with regard to the blood pressure effect, however, the opposite is true. Herter states that an intraperitoneal injection of adrenalin exerts a smaller effect upon blood pressure than an intravenous injection-a fact which Auer and Meltzer can confirm for the rabbit. Our experiments lead us to conclusions which do not conform to those of Herter. It will be recalled that Herter and his coworkers state first, that painting the pancreas causes a marked glycosuria and hyperglycemia, and, second, that the glycosuria and hyperglycemia produced by intraperitoneal injections are of pancreatic origin; that is, they are produced by the adrenalin's coming in contact with the pancreas. In our experiments tabulated in Table IV, in which the pancreas was isolated from the rest of the peritoneal cavity, the glycosuria was about one-third, and the rise in blood sugar about two-thirds that obtained by painting the unisolated pancreas. Hence two facts may be deduced: first, that the painting of the isolated pancreas produces only mild glycosuria and hyperglycemia, and, second, that the greater production of sugar observed after the painting of the unisolated pancreas cannot be of pancreatic origin. Indeed, our experiments point rather to the conclusion that the larger production of sugar after painting the unisolated pancreas is due to the fact that a large part of the adrenalin escapes to the peritoneum. The last mentioned view is supported by the statement of Herter and Wakeman that "applications to the kidney are apt to yield more sugar than similar application to the liver, intestine, spleen, or brain, but the glycosuria is less marked than after the pancreas has been painted." Emerson and one of us had shown that a dissolved substance painted upon a kidney with an intact membrane is incapable of penetrating the membrane and affecting the kidney, or even incapable of entering the circulation, except when the solution escapes to other parts of the peritoneum. It was this observation which led to the suggestion that the effects observed by Herter of painting the pancreas might have been due to the escape of adrenalin to the celiac ganglion. This point has not been directly tested, but several experiments were performed in which the adrenals were painted with the effect on sugar production apparently as intense as that obtained by painting the unisolated pancreas. However this may be, and whether the production of sugar after painting the unisolated pancreas is due to the escape of adrenalin to some definite organ covered by the peritoneum (celiac ganglion or adrenals) or whether the peritoneum as a whole is responsible for the sugar production, it appears that, when sugar production follows the intraperitoneal injection of adrenalin, it is not of pancreatic origin.
在 Blum 发现通过皮下注射肾上腺提取物可以产生糖尿之后,Harter 发现向腹腔内注射肾上腺素也会产生糖尿;这是一个不可否认的事实。至于 Herter 声称腹腔内注射比皮下或静脉注射产生更高程度的糖尿,我们对此没有任何评论,因为我们没有观察到皮下注射肾上腺素的糖尿效应,而我们只进行了三次腹腔内注射的实验。根据目前的实验,我们最多可以预测腹腔内注射肾上腺素会产生比预期更高的糖尿程度。然而,在几年前进行的一项早期研究中,我们得出了这样的概念,即肾上腺素从组织中吸收到循环中的速度越慢,其糖尿效应就越大;因此,肌肉注射的效果几乎与静脉注射相同,但引起的糖尿程度明显小于类似剂量的皮下注射。除非证明腹腔内吸收与皮下注射吸收不同,否则没有理由假设腹腔内注射的糖尿效应比皮下注射大得多。我们可以补充一点,我们之前的实验并不支持 Herter 的观点,即皮下注射肾上腺素只会产生轻微程度的糖尿,因为它在进入循环之前会被大量氧化。根据肾上腺素的给药方式,其对血压和糖产生的影响也有所不同。就糖产生而言,皮下注射比静脉注射有更强的效果;然而,就血压效应而言,情况正好相反。Herter 指出,与静脉注射相比,腹腔内注射肾上腺素对血压的影响较小——这一事实 Auer 和 Meltzer 可以为兔子证实。我们的实验得出的结论与 Herter 的不一致。应该记得,Herter 和他的同事们首先指出,给胰腺涂药会导致明显的糖尿和高血糖,其次,腹腔内注射产生的糖尿和高血糖来自胰腺;也就是说,它们是由肾上腺素与胰腺接触产生的。在我们表 4 中的实验中,胰腺与其他腹膜腔隔离开来,糖尿约为三分之一,血糖升高约为未分离胰腺涂药的三分之二。因此,可以得出两个事实:第一,胰腺的单独涂药只会导致轻度糖尿和高血糖,第二,未分离胰腺涂药后观察到的更大的糖产量不可能来自胰腺。事实上,我们的实验更倾向于得出这样的结论,即未分离胰腺涂药后产生的更大的糖产量是由于大部分肾上腺素逃到了腹膜腔。Herter 和 Wakeman 的声明支持了最后一种观点,即“对肾脏的应用比类似的对肝脏、肠道、脾脏或大脑的应用更容易产生糖,但糖尿的程度不如胰腺涂药后那么明显”。Emerson 和我们中的一个人已经表明,涂在有完整膜的肾脏上的溶解物质不能穿透膜并影响肾脏,甚至不能进入循环,除非溶液逃到腹膜腔的其他部位。正是这一观察结果使我们提出了这样的建议,即 Herter 对胰腺涂药的观察结果可能是由于肾上腺素逃到了腹腔神经节。这一点尚未直接检验,但进行了几项实验,结果表明,对肾上腺进行涂药的效果与未分离胰腺涂药时的糖产生效果明显一样强烈。不管怎样,不管胰腺未分离时涂药后产生的糖是由于肾上腺素逃到腹膜覆盖的某个特定器官(腹腔神经节或肾上腺),还是整个腹膜腔负责糖的产生,似乎在肾上腺素腹腔内注射后产生糖时,它不是来自胰腺。