EPA small pen tests I. Effects of pen and group sizes,sex combinations,and feeding levels on bobwhite activity

Conclusions Six-bird groups of bobwhites in large pens exhibited significantly more movement than did corresponding pairs of bobwhites in small pens, indicating a need to standarize pen and bird-group sizes in EPA small pen tests if results are to be comparable. Although in this study we did not detect any statistically significant differences in activity levels of bobwhites attributable to pen or bird-group size, the fact that the activity of pairs of bobwhites in small pens were consistently higher than those of 6-bird groups in larger pens reinforces the need to standardize pen and bird-group sizes in EPA small-pen tests. High er levels of aggression noted in the 6-bird groups compared with the 2-bird groups further substantiate this need. Additionally, the all-male 6-bird groups traveled significantly less distance than did male-female 6-bird groups, suggesting the need to also standardize sex combinations of birds used in EPA small pen tests. Dietary levels did not appear to affect either activity levels or movements of birds. Therefore this study produced no data to support the need to standardize dietary levels provided birds used in EPA small pen tests.Additional research is needed to separate the effect of group size and pen size on bird activity and movements before these parameters are standardized in EPA small pen test protocol.     

Ghrelin secretion is inhibited by either somatostatin or cortistatin in humans

Ghrelin possesses endocrine and non-endocrine actions mediated by the GH Secretagogue (GHS)-Receptors (GHS-R). The regulation of ghrelin secretion is still largely unknown. Somatostatin (SRIF) modulates central and gastroenteropancreatic hormonal secretions and functions. SRIF actions are partially shared by cortistatin (CST), a natural SRIF analogue, that binds all SRIF receptors and also GHS-R. Herein, we studied the effects of SRIF-14 or CST-14 (2.0 micro g/kg/h i.v. over 120 min) and of placebo on ghrelin, GH, insulin, glucagon and glucose levels in 6 normal young men. Placebo unaffected GH, insulin, glucagon, glucose and ghrelin levels. SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p < 0.05) spontaneous GH secretion of about 90%. After SRIF or CST withdrawal, GH levels recovered to baseline levels. Both SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p<0.01) insulin secretion of about 45%. In both sessions, after SRIF or CST withdrawal, insulin overrode baseline levels. Both SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p < 0.01) glucagon levels of about 40%. After SRIF or CST withdrawal, glucagon persisted lower (p < 0.05) than at baseline. Neither SRIF nor CST modified glucose levels. Both SRIF and CST similarly inhibited (p < 0.01) circulating ghrelin levels of about 55%. Ghrelin levels progressively decreased from time +15 min, reaching the nadir at 120 and 105 min for SRIF and CST, respectively. Even 30 min after SRIF or CST withdrawal, ghrelin levels persisted lower (p < 0.05) than those at baseline. In conclusion, this study first shows that SRIF and CST strongly inhibits ghrelin secretion that, differently from GH and insulin secretion, persists inhibited even after stopping the infusion of SRIF or CST.     

Non-acylated ghrelin counteracts the metabolic but not the neuroendocrine response to acylated ghrelin in humans

Ghrelin possesses strong GH-releasing activity but also other endocrine activities including stimulation of PRL and ACTH secretion, modulation of insulin secretion and glucose metabolism. It is assumed that the GH secretagogue (GHS) receptor (GHS-R) 1a mediates ghrelin actins provided its acylation in Serine 3; in fact, acylated ghrelin only is able to exert endocrine activities. Acylated ghrelin (AG) is present in serum at a 2.5 fold lower concentration than unacylated ghrelin (UAG). UAG, however, is not biologically inactive; it shares with AG some non-endocrine actions like cardiovascular effects, modulation of cell proliferation and even some influence on adipogenesis. Thus, these actions are likely to be mediated by GHS-R subtypes able to bind ghrelin independently of its acylation. In order to further clarify whether UAG is really devoid of any endocrine action, we studied the interaction of the combined administration of AG and UAG (1.0 microg/kg i.v.) in 6 normal young volunteers (age [mean +/- SE]: 25.4 +/- 1.2 yr; BMI: 22.3 +/- 1.0 kg/m2). As expected, AG induced marked increase (p < 0.01) in circulating GH, PRL, ACTH and cortisol levels. AG administration was also followed by a decrease in insulin levels (-285.4 +/- 64.8 mU*min/l; p < 0.05) and an increase in plasma glucose levels (1068.4 +/- 390.4 mg*min/dl; p < 0.01). UAG alone did not induce any change in these parameters. UAG also failed to modify the GH, PRL, ACTH and cortisol responses to AG. However, when UAG was co-administered together with AG, no significant change in insulin (-0.5 +/- 40.9 mU*min/l) and glucose levels (455.9 +/- 88.3 mg*min/dl) was recorded anymore, indicating that the insulin and glucose response to AG has been abolished by UAG. In conclusion, non-acylated ghrelin does not affect the GH, PRL, and ACTH response to acylated ghrelin but is able to antagonize the effects of acylated ghrelin on insulin secretion and glucose levels. These findings indicate that unacylated ghrelin is metabolically active and is likely to counterbalance the influence of acylated ghrelin on insulin secretion and glucose metabolism. As GHS-R1a is not bound by unacylated ghrelin, these findings suggest that GHS receptor subtypes mediate the metabolic actions of both acylated and unacylated ghrelin.     

Effect of aging on the dissociation kinetics and estradiol receptor nuclear interactions in mouse uteri: correlation with biological effects

The dissociation kinetics of uterine estradiol receptor (UER) from young, middle-aged, and old mice have been studied in vitro and correlated with interactions of the steroid receptor with nuclear suspensions in a cell-free system. Furthermore, we have determined in these various age groups of mice the concentration of uterine cytosolic progesterone receptors and the activity of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase. Compared to UER from young mice, the receptor from middle-age and old mice displayed similar first order dissociation kinetics, but a significantly reduced fraction of the slow component resulting from transformation of the receptor into a state of higher affinity for estradiol. In all age groups, sodium molybdate markedly inhibited this heat activation of UER. Recombination studies using heat-treated cytosolic UER and enriched nuclear fractions of various age groups suggested a markedly reduced ability for nuclear binding with advancing age, despite unchanged affinity of activated UER for nuclear acceptor sites that ranged from 3-5 X 10(9) M-1. Cross-incubation studies of heat-activated cytosolic UER with nuclei from young, middle-aged, and old mice suggested that the activation defect of cytosolic UER was already present at middle age and that a reduced nuclear ability to support receptor binding followed the onset of reproductive acyclicity. In parallel with these endocrine defects, we observed, with aging, decreases in mean baseline progesterone receptor concentrations and glucose-6-phosphate activity in uteri of both intact and castrated mice. The diminution of these two parameters was present at middle age, further increased at old age, and persisted after administration of low (0.2 mg) or high (2.0 mg) doses of estradiol for 3 days before study. Our observations suggest that decreased receptor activation is primarily responsible for the decreased effects of estrogen in aging mice.     

Cytotoxic activity of gemcitabine,alone or in combination with mitotane,in adrenocortical carcinoma cell lines

We aimed at investigating in vitro the cytotoxic activity (determined using WST-1, apoptosis and cell cycle assays) of gemcitabine, alone or in combination with mitotane, in mitotane-sensitive H295R and mitotane-insensitive SW-13 cells. Results of these experiments were compared with drug-induced modulation of RRM1 gene, the specific target of gemcitabine. In H295R cells, mitotane and gemcitabine combinations showed antagonistic effects and interfered with the gemcitabine-mediated inhibition of the S phase of the cell cycle. By contrast, in SW-13 cells, except when mitotane was sequentially administered prior to gemcitabine, the combination of the two drugs was synergistic. Such opposite effects were associated with opposite expression profiles of the target gene, with significant up-modulation in H295R but not in SW-13 under gemcitabine and mitotane combination treatment.