Hypothalamic Prolactin: Characterization by Radioimmunoassay and Bioassay and Response to Hypophysectomy and Restraint Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prompted by immunohistochemical reports of prolactin-like immunoreactivity in cell bodies within the rat hypothalamus, a study was undertaken to quantitate the immunologic and biologic activity of this material. Hypothalamic concentrations of prolactin-like immunoreactivity averaged 402 +/- 23 pg/mg of protein (n = 30). 97% recovery of rat prolactin standards added to homogenates of hypothalamus insured that neuronal tissue, as prepared for these studies, did not interfere with the radioimmunoassay of rat prolactin. Examination of the elution profile from Sephadex G-75 columns of the prolactin-like immunoreactivity in hypothalamic extracts showed that the majority of hypothalamic prolactin-like substance was of a larger molecular size than pituitary prolactin. While increasing amounts of brain extract progressively displaced more I125 prolactin from antibody-binding sites, the displacement curve produced by adding hypothalamic extract was not parallel to that produced by the addition of increasing amounts of anterior pituitary prolactin standards of rat origin. Hypothalamic extracts from hypophysectomized animals, analyzed for biologic activity in the Nb2 lymphoma cell assay, revealed prolactin-like bioactivity, but the bioactivity/immunoactivity (B/I) ratios for hypothalamic extracts were significantly lower than the B/I ratios for pituitary prolactin (0.71 +/- 0.04 for pituitary, vs. 0.19 +/- 0.06 in the hypothalamus; p less than 0.001). Hypophysectomy, which led to the expected fall in serum prolactin to undetectable levels, and restraint stress, which resulted in a statistically significant 4-fold rise in serum prolactin, caused no change in prolactin concentrations in the hypothalamus, indicating that brain prolactin-like substance is regulated independently of pituitary prolactin and circulating serum prolactin levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".