Abstract:The cellular mechanisms underlying the effects of vecuronium on the tetanic contraction were studied in vitro with a combination of myographic and electrophysiologic techniques. We used the isolated sciatic nerve extensor digitorum longus muscle preparation of the rat. Indirect twitches were evoked at 0.1 Hz pulses and tetani at 50 Hz pulses. Trains of end-plate potentials were generated at 50 Hz. The electrophysiological variables used in the analysis of the end-plate potentials were: amplitude, tetanic run-down, quantal size and quantal content. The myographic study demonstrated that vecuronium at 0.4 pM caused tetanic fade, but left the twitch unaffected. Regarding electrophysiology, vecuronium (0.4 pM ) decreased the amplitude of end-plate potentials and increased their tetanic run-down. These changes were due to significant reductions in both the quantal content of the end-plate potentials and the quantal size. It is concluded that vecuronium has both pre-and postsynaptic effects at the neuromuscular junction, and that it induces fade of the tetanic contraction via a summation of these effects.The mechanisms underlying the fade of the tetanic contraction induced by two different blockers of neuromuscular transmission, hexamethonium (Gallacci & Oliveira 1990) and pancuronium (Gallacci & Oliveira 1994) have been previously studied in our laboratory. They both affected the tetanic contraction via a conjunction of preand postsynaptic effects. However, these compounds differed in the relative potency of presynaptic effect compared to postsynaptic effect. Thus, in the case of hexamethonium the postsynaptic effect was relatively more prominent than the presynaptic effect while the reverse held true in the case of pancuronium (Gallacci & Oliveira 1990.However, the presynaptic changes caused by hexamethonium and those caused by pancuronium are probably not molecularly identical, because they seem to involve different types of presynaptic receptors. Thus, in the case of hexamethonium, its presynaptic effect is probably the algebraic summation of two opposing mechanisms: one, facilitatory, is exerted via a presynaptic receptor resembling the ganglionic-type nicotinic receptor, and another, inhibitory, is exerted via a presynaptic receptor resembling the muscle-type nicotinic receptor (see Tian et al. 1994, for arguments in favour of the presence of both of these types of receptors in the motor nerve terminal). Although pancuronium is not effective on the ganglionic type of nicotinic receptor (Kharkevich & Shorr 1986), it can, how-