Comparative Study of the Binding of Prolactin and Growth Hormone by Rabbit and Human Lung Cell Membrane Fractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The specific binding capacities for human prolactin (hPRL) and human growth hormone (hGH) were examined in human lung membrane preparations at different developmental stages. A parallel study was carried out on rabbit lung preparations to compare binding parameters. Lung tissues were obtained from 15 fetuses of 16-38 weeks after spontaneous or therapeutic abortion and from 7 adults (lobar resection surgery). A histological study was systematically performed with a radial alveolar count in the fetuses with suspected hypoplasia. Binding analysis was performed on both intact membrane preparations and MgCl2-treated membranes, using [125I]hGH and [125I]hPRL as tracers. In the rabbit lung, specific [125I]hGH binding was found. Scatchard analysis revealed a single class of binding sites (affinity constant: 2.6 +/- 0.8 x 10(9) l/nmol and number of binding sites: 9.5 +/- 4.3 fmol/mg protein for adult rabbit; 1.85 +/- 0.5 x 10(9) l/nmol and 27.6 +/- 3.0 fmol/mg protein for 25-day-old rabbit fetuses, respectively). In contrast, [125I]hPRL did not specifically bind to lung membrane preparations. In the human lung, no consistent specific binding sites for [125I]hPRL or [125I]hGH (less than 0.5%/mg protein) were detected in adults and in 11 of the 15 fetuses. In 4 fetuses, little specific binding was observed (0.59-1.9%/mg protein) for [125I]hGH and (1.5%/mg protein) for [125I]hPRL. There was no correlation with histological lung structure. Our findings confirm the presence of specific binding sites for GH in the adult rabbit lung and demonstrate such binding in the fetal rabbit lung. In contrast, our results showed no significant binding for PRL and GH in the human lung, suggesting that these hormones do not play a direct physiological role in human lung growth and maturation.
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".