Growth Hormone Responsiveness in vivo and in vitro to Growth Hormone Releasing Factor in the Spontaneously Diabetic BB Wistar Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to determine whether there is an abnormality in the pituitary responsiveness to GRF in the diabetic rat, we examined the in vivo and in vitro effects of hGRF-44 NH2 (hGRF) on growth hormone (GH) release in the spontaneously diabetic BB Wistar rat. Under pentobarbital anesthesia, hGRF was injected intravenously at a dose of 500 ng/kg in male diabetic BB Wistar rats (n = 11) and in male control Wistar rats matched for weight (n = 11). Basal serum GH concentrations were significantly lower in the diabetic group, (123 +/- 5 ng/ml, mean +/- SEM) than in the control group (362 +/- 15 ng/ml). However, the GH response to hGRF was significantly greater in the diabetic group (GH increment 873 +/- 153 ng/ml) than in the control group (268 +/- 91 ng/ml). The effect of hGRF was further tested in a perifusion system of freshly dispersed anterior pituitary cells of diabetic BB Wistar rats and control Wistar rats. Basal secretion rate of GH from cells of diabetic rats (0.85 +/- 0.06 microgram/2 pituitaries X 2 min) was lower than that from cells of control rats (1.60 +/- 0.18 micrograms/2 pituitaries X 2 min). The GH response to 2-min pulses of hGRF at concentrations of 1.56, 6.25, and 25 pM with and without somatostatin 10(-9) M was significantly greater in the diabetic group than in the control group. In conclusion, there is in the spontaneously diabetic rat an increased in vivo and in vitro GH responsiveness to exogenous hGRF suggesting an abnormality of GH regulation at the pituitary level.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".