MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026368053 · doi:10.1159/000126670

In vivo Alterations in the Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Pulse Generator and the Secretion and Clearance of Luteinizing Hormone in the Uremic Castrate Rat

2008· article· en· W2026368053 on OpenAlexaff
Franz Schaefer, Markus Daschner, Johannes D. Veldhuis, Jun Oh, Fatimunnisa Qadri, K Schärer

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroendocrinology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian function and disorders
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsEndocrinologyInternal medicineLuteinizing hormoneGonadotropinHormoneIn vivoSecretionBiologyChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the mechanisms subserving the reported alterations in the pulsatile release of LH in uremia, we simultaneously studied endogenous accumulation of GnRH in the pituitary gland and the secretion and clearance of LH in vivo in experimentally uremic, orchidectomized rats. The temporal pattern of GnRH secretion was assessed by intrapituitary microdialysis, the dynamics of plasma LH by continuous exchange transfusion. Studies were performed in rats rendered uremic by subtotal nephrectomy (n = 8) and control rats which were either fed ad libitum (n = 8) or pair-fed with the uremic animals (n = 8). Blood samples were obtained at 5-min and microdialysate samples at 10-min intervals over a period of 270 min. The pulsatile secretory characteristics of GnRH and LH and the half-life of plasma LH were estimated by multiple-parameter deconvolution analysis. The temporal relationship between the hormone concentrations and between the secretory events of GnRH and LH was assessed by cross-correlation analysis and hypergeometric coincidence analysis. We observed that: (1) the estimated half-life of plasma LH was prolonged in uremic (59 ± 10 min) rats compared to ad libitum-fed (17 ± 3 min, p = 0.014) and pair-fed controls (19 ± 3 min, p = 0.025); (2) the LH production rate was decreased in uremic animals (18 ± 5 ng/ml·270 min) compared to ad libitum-fed (37 ± 4 ng/ml-270 min, p = 0.002) and pair-fed controls (48 ± 9 ng/ml·270 min, p = 0.0006); (3) the reduction of LH secretion rate in the uremic animals was accounted for by a decrease in detectable LH pulse frequency (2.1 ± 0.2 peaks/h) compared to ad libitum-fed (3.1 ± 0.1 peaks/h, p = 0.01) and pair-fed controls (2.8 ± 0.2 peaks/h, p = 0.06) and a diminished mass of hormone released per burst (uremic 1.8 ± 0.2 ng/ml, ad libitum-fed 2.6 ± 0.3 ng/ml, p = 0.05, pair-fed 3.8 ± 0.8 ng/ml, p = 0.025); (4) the secretion rate of GnRH was reduced to a similar degree in uremic rats (180 ± 15 pg/tube -270 min, p = 0.04) and pair-fed controls (170 ± 26 pg/tube-270 min, p = 0.04) compared to ad libitum-fed controls (270 ± 36 pg/ tube-270 min). In contrast to the reduced number of detectable LH secretory events, the frequency of GnRH secretory peaks in uremic rats was not different from ad libitum-fed and pair-fed controls. The reduced GnRH secretion rate in uremic and pairfed animals was entirely attributable to a decrease mass of GnRH released per burst (uremic 18+ 1.5, p = 0.06; pair-fed 17 ± 2.2, p = 0.046; ad libitum-fed 27 + 3.6 pg/tube); (5) the number of coincident GnRH and LH secretory events exceeded the rate expected by chance alone (p < 10-5) in all three groups of animals. Cross-correlation analysis showed the highest concordance between GnRH and LH for LH concentrations lagging GnRH by 0-5 min. Eighty-two percent of the GnRH impulses observed in the control groups, but only 62% in the uremic group coincided within + 5 min with a GnRH impulse. In conclusion, our findings indicate that reduced metabolic clearance masks pituitary hyposecretion of LH in uremic rats. Decreased LH production results from a reduction in GnRH impulse strength and altered hypothalamo-pituitary signal transduction. The former finding may be related to mild malnutrition and/or paracrine autoregulation, while the latter appears to be uremia-specific.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroendocrinologySame topicOvarian function and disordersFrench-language works237,207