Distribution of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 channels in gastrointestinal tract of patients with morbid obesity

Table 1 Distribution and comparison of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 in fundus cells in the morbidly obese and control groups, n (%)

Fundus			Obese	Control	All cases	P value
Parietal	No staining		6 (13.0)	7 (35)	13 (19.6)
	Distribution	Limited	8 (17.3)	3 (15)	11 (16.6)
		Widespread	32 (69.5)	10 (50)	42 (63.6)
	Intensity	Poor	33 (71.7)	11 (55)	44 (66.6)
		Strong	7 (15.2)	2 (10)	9 (13.6)
	IRS ± SE		5.42 ± 0.49a,c	4.84 ± 0.93a,c	5.25 ± 0.44a,c	0.60
Chief	No staining		15 (32.6)	11 (55)	26 (39.3)
	Distribution	Limited	9 (19.5)	6 (30)	15 (22.7)
		Widespread	22 (47.8)	5 (25)	27 (40.9)
	Intensity	Poor	30 (65.2)	11 (55)	41 (62.1)
		Strong	1 (2.1)	0 (0)	1 (1.5)
	IRS ± SE		2.78 ± 0.40a,e	1.74 ± 0.50a	2.47 ± 0.32a,e	0.13
Foveolar	No staining		42 (91.3)	16 (80)	58 (87.8)
	Distribution	Limited	1 (2.1)	0 (0)	1 (1.5)
		Widespread	3 (6.5)	4 (20)	7 (10.6)
	Intensity	Poor	4 (8.6)	4 (20)	8 (12.1)
		Strong	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
	IRS ± SEM		0.33 ± 0.16c,e	0.84 ± 0.38c	0.48 ± 0.16c,e	0.16

^aP < 0.01 vs Parietal-Chief cell.

^cP < 0.01 vs Parietal-Foveolar cell.

^eP < 0.01 vs Chief-Foveolar cell.

IRS: Immunoreactivity score.

Table 2 Distribution and comparison of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 in antrum cells in the morbidly obese and control groups, n (%)

Antrum			Obese	Control	All cases	P value
Foveolar	No staining		14 (30.4)	7 (35)	21 (31.8)
	Distribution	Limited	10 (21.7)	1 (5)	11 (16.6)
		Widespread	22 (47.8)	12 (60)	34 (51.5)
	Intensity	Poor	27 (58.6)	10 (50)	37 (56.0)
		Strong	5 (10.8)	3 (15)	8 (12.1%)
	IRS ± SE		5.18 ± 0.59a	4.35 ± 0.91a	4.92 ± 0.49a	0.44
Mucous	No staining		20 (43.4)	9 (45)	29 (43.9)
	Distribution	Limited	21 (45.6)	7 (35)	28 (42.4)
		Widespread	5 (10.8)	4 (20)	9 (13.6)
	Intensity	Poor	19 (41.3)	8 (40)	27 (40.9)
		Strong	7 (15.2)	3 (15)	10 (15.1)
	IRS ± SE		3.24 ± 0.60a	2.30 ± 0.70a	2.95 ± 0.46a	0.56

^aP < 0.01 vs Mucous-Foveolar cell.

IRS: Immunoreactivity score.

Table 3 Distribution and comparison of transient receptor potential vanilloid-1 in duodenal cells in the morbidly obese and control groups, n (%)

Duodenal			Obese	Control	All cases	P value
Goblet	No staining		30 (65.2)	15 (75)	45 (68.1)
	Distribution	Limited	12 (26.0)	2 (10)	14 (21.2)
		Widespread	4 (8.6)	3 (15)	7 (10.6)
	Intensity	Poor	16 (3.7)	5 (25)	21 (31.8)
		Strong	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0%)
	IRS (± SEM)		1.14 ± 0.25b	0.8 ± 0.34a	1.03 ± 0.2b	0.40
Absorptive	No staining		24 (52.1)	9 (45)	33 (50)
	Distribution	Limited	11 (23.9)	8 (40)	19 (28.7)
		Widespread	11 (23.9)	3 (15)	24 (36.3)
	Intensity	Poor	19 (41.3)	6 (30)	25 (37.8)
		Strong	3 (6.5)	5 (25)	8 (12.1)
	IRS (± SEM)		2.14 ± 0.41b	2.25 ± 0.56a,c	2.17 ± 0.33b,d	0.90
Mucous	No staining		31 (67.3)	15 (75)	46 (69.6)
	Distribution	Limited	12 (26.0)	3 (15)	15 (22.7)
		Widespread	3 (6.5)	2 (10)	5 (7.5)
	Intensity	Poor	9 (19.5)	5 (25)	14 (21.2)
		Strong	6 (13.0)	0 (0)	6 (9.0)
	IRS (± SEM)		1.55 ± 0.41	0.85 ± 0.39c	1.33 ± 0.31d	0.41

^aP < 0.05 vs Goblet-Absorptive cell.

^bP < 0.01 vs Goblet-Absorptive cell.

^cP < 0.05 vs Mucous-Absorptive cell.

^dP < 0.01 vs Mucous-Absorptive cell.

IRS: Immunoreactivity score.