Ghrelin-induced GH secretion in domestic fowl in vivo and in vitro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although avian and mammalian species differ significantly in their regulation of GH secretion, preliminary studies have demonstrated in vivo GH responses to ghrelin in chickens, as in mammals. However, the relative potency of ghrelin as a GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) in birds is uncertain, as is its site of action. The intravenous administration of human ghrelin to immature chickens promptly increased the circulating GH concentration (within 10 min), although this was transitory and was only maintained for 20 min. This GH response was dose-related with an EC50 of approximately 3.0 microg/kg, comparable with the reported potency of human GHRH in chickens. When incubated with dispersed pituitary cells, human ghrelin induced dose-dependent GH release over a range of 10(-6) to 10(-9) M, with an EC50 of 7.0 x 10(-8) M, comparable with that induced by human GHRH (EC50 6.0 x 10(-8) M), although it was less effective at doses of 10(-6) to 10(-8) M. This was due to direct effects on pituitary somatotrophs, since human ghrelin increased GH release (determined by the reverse hemolytic plaque assay) from individual pituitary cells. The incubation of these cells with human ghrelin induced a dose-dependent increase in the numbers of somatotrophs secreting GH and in the amount of GH released by each cell. In summary, these results demonstrated that ghrelin is a dose-related GH-releasing factor in chickens with a potency comparable with that induced by human GHRH. The GH-releasing action of ghrelin is due, at least in part, to stimulatory actions on the numbers of somatotrophs induced to release GH and upon the amount of GH released from individual somatotrophs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".