Can muscaranic antagonists have and indirect effect on nicotinic receptors ?

[Kdem]

By blocking the muscarinic receptors, would there be ´more´ (technically not accurate) acetylcholine to bind to the nicotinic receptors ?

 

[Solipsis]

I might be wrong but I think the concentrations of acetylcholine are so much greater than the populations of these receptors that the difference from acetylcholine otherwise bound to the now blocked muscarinic receptor is negligible in comparison to those overall acetylcholine concentrations.

These receptors each play their own role in how acetylcholine makes the postsynaptic dendrite polarize and that neuron fire... adjusting activity on just one of these receptors selectively would affect the neuron's firing by changing both how readily it fires and how quickly it fires again after that ('reloads')... so this would be the main effect of cholinergic agents.

 

[Cotcha Yankinov]

^Correct, there are many molecules of acetylcholine for every acetylcholine receptor so blocking a muscarinic receptor won't appreciably increase the acetylcholine available to bind to nicotinic receptors. What you are suggesting is essentially the opposite of "ligand depletion"

 

[d1nach]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ghEMAk&usg=AFQjCNGmfXgfMEsHYU9T_T8qVGzo1PuYrA

This might help.

Scopolamine is a muscarinic antagonist

M2 is just a type of muscarinic receptor

Muscarinic is just a type of acetylcholinergic receptor

Like you can have
Clothes
A type of which are
Pants
A class of pants are shorts
A sub type of shorts are
The grey nike ones