Effect of Corticotropin-Releasing Factor on the Release and Synthesis of Prolactin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) has been characterized on the basis of its intrinsic activity to release corticotropin from cultured rat anterior pituitary cells. Injected in intact rats, CRF increases adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) release. Endogenous CRF-like immunoreactivity was detected in the cytoplasm and nucleus of corticotrophs. Using an antirat CRF serum, a similar location of CRF-like immunoreactivity was observed in lactotrophs: cytoplasmic matrix, secretory granules, nucleus and, to a lesser degree, the plasma membrane level were stained. One injection of CRF increased the plasma ACTH concentration 4-fold after 15 min, while plasma prolactin (PRL) increased 2.7-fold 5 min after injection. In vitro, incubation of female pituitary cells with rat CRF (10(-10)-10(-8) M) had no significant effect on PRL secretion. In contrast, after 4 days of in vitro pretreatment with 17 beta-estradiol (10(-9) M), rat CRF stimulated PRL secretion by 42%. In situ hybridization of whole pituitary slices showed that rat CRF injection significantly increased the labeling of corticotrophs using an ACTH-cDNA probe, but had no significant effect on the labeling of lactotrophs using a PRL riboprobe. These results indicate that CRF is a factor which can modulate PRL release but not the synthesis of PRL.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".