Presence of Prolactin-Like Immunoreactivity and Bioactivity in Rat Spinal Cord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pursuant to our identification of prolactin-like immunoreactivity (PLI), widely distributed in rat brain, the spinal cord was examined for the presence of this pituitary-hormone-like protein. PLI was present in all spinal cord extracts examined and averaged 500 +/- 53 pg/mg protein. Hypophysectomy, causing a fall in serum prolactin to undetectable levels, was not associated with any change in levels of PLI in spinal cord. Recovery of rat prolactin standards added to spinal cord homogenates was 97.6 +/- 3.9%. When increasing concentrations of spinal cord extract were assayed in a prolactin radioimmunoassay, displacement of rat 125I-Prolactin from antiserum was parallel to that displacement produced by increasing concentrations of rat anterior pituitary standards. Upon subjection to gel permeation chromatography, the elution profiles of immunoreactive prolactin from spinal cord were different from the profiles of anterior pituitary prolactin. In addition to an immunoreactive prolactin peak eluting with pituitary prolactin, spinal cord extracts showed a large void volume peak and late eluting low-molecular-weight materials not seen with anterior pituitary. In the Nb2 lymphoma cell assay, all spinal cord extracts demonstrated prolactin-like bioactivity with a bioactivity/immunoreactivity ratio of 1.05 +/- 0.13. We conclude: (1) PLI, widely distributed in rat brain, is also present in spinal cord; (2) spinal cord prolactin levels are independent of levels in pituitary and peripheral circulation; (3) this immunoreactive prolactin is bioactive, and (4) differing gel permeation chromatographic elution profiles indicate that there may be some molecular differences between pituitary and spinal cord prolactin.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".