Some Morphological and Functional Characteristics of Cells of the Porcine Theca Interna in Tissue Culture

  • S. Stoklosowa
  • J. Bahr
  • E. Gregoraszczuk
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 112)


Theca interna cells were collected from large porcine follicles in the follicular phase of the cycle. The theca interna layer was manually separated from the theca externa, washed thoroughly, occasionally treated with hyaluronidase solution and trypsinized. The resulting cell suspension consisted of approximately 70% theca interna cells, 8% granulosa cells, and 23% nonsteroidogenic cells. In one experiment, cells collected from the granulosa layer and the theca interna of the same follicles were compared. Specific cell types were identified by: 1) staining with Oil Red 0 (ORO) to visualize lipid droplets in the cytoplasm, 2) measuring activity of the Δ 36-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (Δ 36-OH SH) enzyme, and 3) quantitating estrogen production by the cultured cells.

Theca interna cells can be distinguished from granulosa cells in suspension prior to culture by the following criteria:
  1. 1.

    more intense staining with ORO,

  2. 2.

    stronger Δ5,36-OH SH activity,

  3. 3.

    larger cell size.

Theca interna cells can be distinguished from granulosa cells by the following parameters:
  1. 1)

    more elongated shape,

  2. 2)

    slower and more chaotic growth,

  3. 3)

    weaker enzyme activity,

  4. 4)

    increased estrogen production.



Granulosa Cell Thecal Cell Large Cell Size Result Cell Suspension Culture Granulosa Cell 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. (1).
    L. Bjersing. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. 55(1962)127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    C. P. Channing. Nature. 210 (1966) 1266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. (3).
    C. P. Channing. J. Endocr. 43(1969)403.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    C. P. Channing. J. Endocr. 45(1969)297.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    C. P. Channing. Endocrinology. 87(1970)49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    T. V. Fischer and R. H. Kahn. In Vitro. 7(1972)201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    S. G. Korenman, P. M. Lolc, I. Beceiro, B. M. Sherman, and D. K. Granner. Endocrinology. 93 (1973) 1423.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    E. Lacroix, W. Eechaute, and I. Leusen. Steroids. 23(1974)337.Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    M. Ryle, J. Kent, and J. Boggis. Ann. Biol. Anim. Bioch. Biophys. 13(1973)223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    P. Rondell. Biol. Reprod. 10(1974)199.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    C. P. Channing. Endocrinology. 87(1970)156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Stoklosowa
    • 1
  • J. Bahr
    • 1
    • 2
  • E. Gregoraszczuk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal PhysiologyInstitute of Zoology Jagiellonian UniversityKrakowPoland
  2. 2.Department of Animal ScienceAnimal Genetics Laboratory University of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations