Factors influencing intercellular spaces in the rat esophageal epithelium

Table 1 Effect of damaging factors on intercellular space diameters of esophageal epithelium (μm, mean ± SD)

Groups	Cases	Mean IS	Mean of minimal IS	Mean of maximal IS
NC	5	0.13 ± 0.02	0.09 ± 0.02	0.18 ± 0.03
NSIG	5	0.19 ± 0.05	0.10 ± 0.01	0.29 ± 0.12
NSHD	5	0.14 ± 0.03	0.09 ± 0.02	0.20 ± 0.02
WRS	6	0.38 ± 0.05b	0.20 ± 0.06b	0.64 ± 0.08b
HCLIG	6	0.24 ± 0.03	0.14 ± 0.02	0.40 ± 0.10
EIG	6	0.25 ± 0.10	0.16 ± 0.07	0.37 ± 0.13
AIG	6	0.32 ± 0.12d	0.19 ± 0.07d	0.47 ± 0.17d
PHD	6	0.20 ± 0.03	0.13 ± 0.02	0.30 ± 0.07

^bP < 0.01 vs NC;

^dP < 0.01 vs NSIG. IS: Intercellular spaces; NC: Normal control group; NSIG: Normal saline (NS) intragastric administration group; NSHD: NS hypodermic injection group; WRS: Water immersion and restraint stress group; HCLIG: Hydrochloric acid intragastric administration group; EIG: Ethanol intragastric administration group; AIG: Aspirin intragastric administration group; PHD: Prednisolone hypodermic injection group.

Table 2 Effect of esomeprazole pretreatment on esophageal epithelial DIS induced by WRS and aspirin (μm, mean ± SD)

Damaging factors	Mean IS		Mean of minimal IS		Mean of maximal IS
	Control group	Esomeprazole group	Control group	Esomeprazole group	Control group	Esomeprazole group
WRS	0.37 ± 0.05	0.35 ± 0.05	0.27 ± 0.05	0.25 ± 0.04	0.49 ± 0.05	0.45 ± 0.07
AIG	0.27 ± 0.03	0.24 ± 0.02	0.19 ± 0.02	0.18 ± 0.02	0.35 ± 0.05	0.32 ± 0.03