Fig. 4

Jejunal motility in response to EA at LI11 under the administration of the parasympathetic pathway. Aa Representative tracings of jejunal motility regulated by EA, EA with the administration of ACh and atropine in rats. Ab Compared with the jejunal pressure before EA, changes were observed during EA in the control group and ACh group, but EA at LI11 failed to enhance jejunal pressure in the atropine group. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 8 rats per group at each period). ^△ P < 0.05 vs pre-EA, ^# P > 0.05 vs pre-EA, paired t-test. Ac Promotion percentages of jejunal pressure from EA in the atropine group was below 105%, and were significantly lower than the other two groups. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 8 rats/mice). ^a P < 0.05 vs control group, Ach group, ^b P > 0.05 vs control group, Ach group, One-way ANOVA. Ba Representative tracings of jejunal motility regulated by EA, EA with the vagotomy, sham operation in rats. Bb Compared with the jejunal pressure before EA, changes were observed during EA in the control group and sham control group, but EA at LI11 failed to enhance jejunal pressure in the vagotomy group. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 8 rats per group at each period). △P < 0.05 vs pre-EA, ▽P > 0.05 vs pre-EA, paired t-test. Bc Promotion percentages of jejunal pressure from EA in the vagotomy group was below 105%, and were significantly lower than the other two groups. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 8 rats/mice). ^a P < 0.05 vs control group, Ach group, ^b P > 0.05 vs control group, Ach group, One-way ANOVA. Ca Representative tracings of jejunal motility regulated by EA in WT mice and M₂M₃ ^−/− mice. Cb Compared with the jejunal pressure before EA at the same intensity, the jejunal pressure in the WT group was enhanced with EA at LI11, but no impact was demonstrated in the M₂M₃ ^−/− group. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 8 mice per group at each period). ^* P < 0.05 vs pre-EA, ^○ P > 0.05 vs pre-EA, paired t-test. Cc Promotion percentages of jejunal pressure from EA in the M₂M₃ ^−/− group were below 105%, and was significantly lower than the WT group. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 8 rats/mice). ^a P < 0.05 vs WT group, ^b P > 0.05 vs WT group, One-way ANOVA. EA, electroacupuncture; ACh, acetylcholine; WT, wild-type