{"id":{"repo_id":"edinburgh","oai_identifier":"oai:era.ed.ac.uk:1842/34252"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/edinburgh/oai:era.ed.ac.uk:1842/34252","repository":{"repo_id":"edinburgh","name":"University of Edinburgh","base_url":"https://era.ed.ac.uk/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The electrophysiology of smooth muscle","abstract":"Initial investigations into the electrophysiology of smooth muscle were carried out by Bozler (1946) who studied the ureter, uterus and muscle of the intestine using external electrodes. He recorded action potentials similar to those which had been recorded from other excitable tissues during normal movements of the stomach and small intestine, and found that each movement was usually accompanied by a repetitive discharge. These observations conflicted with those of Rosenblueth and his collaborators (1936) who found smooth muscle to be incapable of giving all-or-none responses. Bozler's observations lead to the conclusion that 'the activity of smooth muscle is due to the discharge of impulses which are accompanied by action potentials like those found in striated muscle and nerve', thus bringing these different tissues into line. He considered that 'the great variability of the movements which is characteristic for smooth muscle can be explained by such factors as frequency and number of impulses discharged, rate of conduction, and variations in excitability'. Thus early in the history of study of smooth muscle, was it recognized that the original idea of von Euler, Rosenblueth and others, that some essential qualitative difference must exist between smooth and skeletal muscle to explain the wide differences in their behaviour, was not supported by the experimental evidence, and that in fact the different tissues probably shared the same basic properties.","abstract_html":"Initial investigations into the electrophysiology of smooth muscle were carried out by Bozler (1946) who studied the ureter, uterus and muscle of the intestine using external electrodes. He recorded action potentials similar to those which had been recorded from other excitable tissues during normal movements of the stomach and small intestine, and found that each movement was usually accompanied by a repetitive discharge. These observations conflicted with those of Rosenblueth and his collaborators (1936) who found smooth muscle to be incapable of giving all-or-none responses. Bozler's observations lead to the conclusion that 'the activity of smooth muscle is due to the discharge of impulses which are accompanied by action potentials like those found in striated muscle and nerve', thus bringing these different tissues into line. He considered that 'the great variability of the movements which is characteristic for smooth muscle can be explained by such factors as frequency and number of impulses discharged, rate of conduction, and variations in excitability'. Thus early in the history of study of smooth muscle, was it recognized that the original idea of von Euler, Rosenblueth and others, that some essential qualitative difference must exist between smooth and skeletal muscle to explain the wide differences in their behaviour, was not supported by the experimental evidence, and that in fact the different tissues probably shared the same basic properties.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Trail, Wilma M."],"institution":"The University of Edinburgh","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1962,"date_issued":"1962","date_published":"1962","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:14:09Z","subjects":[],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1842/34252","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Trail, Wilma M."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2019-02-15T14:25:06Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-02-15T14:25:06Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1962"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["The University of Edinburgh"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or Dissertation"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationlevel","label":"Dc Type Qualificationlevel","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"dc:type.qualificationname","label":"Dc Type Qualificationname","values":["Prize Essay"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1842/34252"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Initial investigations into the electrophysiology of smooth muscle were carried out by Bozler (1946) who studied the ureter, uterus and muscle of the intestine using external electrodes. He recorded action potentials similar to those which had been recorded from other excitable tissues during normal movements of the stomach and small intestine, and found that each movement was usually accompanied by a repetitive discharge. These observations conflicted with those of Rosenblueth and his collaborators (1936) who found smooth muscle to be incapable of giving all-or-none responses. Bozler's observations lead to the conclusion that 'the activity of smooth muscle is due to the discharge of impulses which are accompanied by action potentials like those found in striated muscle and nerve', thus bringing these different tissues into line. He considered that 'the great variability of the movements which is characteristic for smooth muscle can be explained by such factors as frequency and number of impulses discharged, rate of conduction, and variations in excitability'. Thus early in the history of study of smooth muscle, was it recognized that the original idea of von Euler, Rosenblueth and others, that some essential qualitative difference must exist between smooth and skeletal muscle to explain the wide differences in their behaviour, was not supported by the experimental evidence, and that in fact the different tissues probably shared the same basic properties.","With the development of the ionic hypothesis of Hodgkin and Huxley (1952), the old problem of the existence of basic similarities or differences between smooth muscle and other excitable tissues had to be approached at the cellular level. This essay is concerned with the study of the electrophysiological properties of smooth muscle by investigation of the behaviour of single cells with microelectrode techniques. It aims to show that on this level the trend has again been towards a recognition of the fact that a merely quantitative rather than a major qualitative difference would account for the differences in properties of the different tissues. This change in outlook is due to the development and improvement of apparatus and recording techniques. With the various technical advances, better understanding of the peculiar properties of smooth muscle has resulted, although much investigation still remains to be carried out, and it is now realised that, if some difference in the permeability of the cell membrane is assumed, the characteristics of smooth muscle may be explained on the basis of the ionic theory."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The electrophysiology of smooth muscle"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Trail, Wilma M."],"dc:date.accessioned":["2019-02-15T14:25:06Z"],"dc:date.available":["2019-02-15T14:25:06Z"],"dc:date.issued":["1962"],"dc:description.abstract":["Initial investigations into the electrophysiology of smooth muscle were carried out by Bozler (1946) who studied the ureter, uterus and muscle of the intestine using external electrodes. He recorded action potentials similar to those which had been recorded from other excitable tissues during normal movements of the stomach and small intestine, and found that each movement was usually accompanied by a repetitive discharge. These observations conflicted with those of Rosenblueth and his collaborators (1936) who found smooth muscle to be incapable of giving all-or-none responses. Bozler's observations lead to the conclusion that 'the activity of smooth muscle is due to the discharge of impulses which are accompanied by action potentials like those found in striated muscle and nerve', thus bringing these different tissues into line. He considered that 'the great variability of the movements which is characteristic for smooth muscle can be explained by such factors as frequency and number of impulses discharged, rate of conduction, and variations in excitability'. Thus early in the history of study of smooth muscle, was it recognized that the original idea of von Euler, Rosenblueth and others, that some essential qualitative difference must exist between smooth and skeletal muscle to explain the wide differences in their behaviour, was not supported by the experimental evidence, and that in fact the different tissues probably shared the same basic properties.","With the development of the ionic hypothesis of Hodgkin and Huxley (1952), the old problem of the existence of basic similarities or differences between smooth muscle and other excitable tissues had to be approached at the cellular level. This essay is concerned with the study of the electrophysiological properties of smooth muscle by investigation of the behaviour of single cells with microelectrode techniques. It aims to show that on this level the trend has again been towards a recognition of the fact that a merely quantitative rather than a major qualitative difference would account for the differences in properties of the different tissues. This change in outlook is due to the development and improvement of apparatus and recording techniques. With the various technical advances, better understanding of the peculiar properties of smooth muscle has resulted, although much investigation still remains to be carried out, and it is now realised that, if some difference in the permeability of the cell membrane is assumed, the characteristics of smooth muscle may be explained on the basis of the ionic theory."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1842/34252"],"dc:publisher":["The University of Edinburgh"],"dc:title":["The electrophysiology of smooth muscle"],"dc:type":["Thesis or Dissertation"],"dc:type.qualificationlevel":["Doctoral"],"dc:type.qualificationname":["Prize Essay"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:14:09Z"}