Advertisement

Evidence of a Greater Activity of LH/HCH Binding Inhibitor Present in Aqueous Extracts from Old Compared to Young Porcine Corpus Luteum

  • Sandra Tucker
  • Lakshmi Kumari
  • Cornelia P. Channing
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 112)

Abstract

Previously Yang, Saaman and Ward have shown the presence of an LH binding inhibitor in the 30,000 xg supernatant obtained from Parlow “pseudopregnant” and pregnant rat ovaries, which they have designated as LH receptor binding inhibitor or LHRBI. In addition, they have shown that LHRBI is a low molecular weight polypeptide of approximately 3,800 daltons (1). In 1977 Sakai, Channing and Engel demonstrated that crude extracts of porcine corpus luteum have the ability to inhibit the binding of 125I-hCG to porcine granulosa cells from large follicles (2). They observed that the inhibitory activity was localized in luteal tissue and absent in non-luteal ovarian tissue, granulosa cells, heart and lung. This inhibitory activity increased upon freezing of the ovaries and was present in the 100,000 xg supernatant of aqueous luteal extracts.

Keywords

Luteinizing Hormone Granulosa Cell Corpus Luteum Binding Inhibitor Luteal Tissue 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    K.P. Yang, N. Samaan and D.N. Ward. Endocrinology 98 (1976) 233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. (2).
    C.N. Sakai, B. Engel and C.P. Channing. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 155(1976)155.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    W. Hansel, P.W. Cancannon and J.H. Lukaszewska. Reprod. 8(1973)222.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    L.L. Anderson and R.M. Melampy in: Reproduction in the female mammal. ed. G.E. Lamming and E.C. Amoroso pp. 285–316 Butterworth, London 1967.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    R.N. Anderson, F.L. Schwartz and L.C. Ulbers. Biol. Reprod. 10(1974)321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    S. Kammerman, R.E. Canfield, J. Kolena and C.P. Channing. Endocrinology 91(1972)65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (7).
    C.P. Channing and S. Kammerman. Endocrinology 92(1973)531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    E.L. Akins and M.C. Marsisette. American Vet. Res. 29 (1968) 1953.Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    H. Lowry, N.J. Rosenbrough, A. L. Farr and R.J. Randall J. Biol. Chem. 193(1951)265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    F.C. Greenwood, W.M. Hunter and J.S. Glover. Biochem. J. 89(1963)114.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    V.J. Goldberg and P.W. Ramwell. Physiol. Rev. 55(1975)325.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Tucker
    • 1
  • Lakshmi Kumari
    • 1
  • Cornelia P. Channing
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysiologyUniversity of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations