Granulosa cells of the cumulus oophorus are different from mural granulosa cells in their response to gonadotrophins and IGF-I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two types of granulosa cells: those which surround the oocyte are cumulus cells (CC) and those which surround the antrum are mural granulosa cells (MGC). These cells are under the influence of several hormones and growth factors, the most important of which are gonadotrophins and IGF-I. In this article, we report novel observations on the differences between these two types of granulosa cells and their interaction with gonadotrophins and IGF-I. We were able to conduct physiological studies on the role of IGF-I by using an analogue of IGF-I which does not bind to IGF-I-binding proteins (LR3-IGF-I). Immature rats received saline, equine chorionic gonadotrophin (eCG), LR3-IGF-I or eCG plus LR3-IGF-I by infusion using a pump from 24-29 days of age. The rats were killed and the ovaries removed. Surface follicles were punctured and MGC and oocyte cumulus complexes were removed. These were cultured in saline (control) and in three different doses of FSH. Cell replication was assessed by 3H-thymidine incorporation and differentiation was evaluated by the measurement of progesterone secretion. It was noted that CC replicated ten times more than MGC. Similarly, progesterone secretion by CC was six times more than by MGC. In vivo exposure to gonadotrophins (eCG) positively influenced in vitro treatment with FSH in both cell types. This phenomenon was observed in both cell replication and progesterone secretion. The IGF-I analogue had a positive effect on cell replication of MGC but a negative effect on the cell replication of CC. With respect to progesterone secretion, the IGF-I analogue had a negative effect on CC but a positive effect on MGC. In conclusion, CC behaved differently from MGC in response to gonadotrophins and the IGF-I analogue. IGF-I and FSH acted additively, synergistically or antagonistically in different circumstances.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".