Human GH pulsatility: an ensemble property regulated by age and gender.

Age and gender impact the full repertoire of neurohormone systems, including most prominently the somatotropic, gonadotropic and lactotropic axes. For example, daily GH production is approximately 2-fold higher in young women than men and varies by 20-fold by sexual developmental status and age. Deconvolution estimates of 24-h GH secretion rates exceed 1200 microg/m2 in adolescents and fall below 60 microg/m2 in aged individuals. The present overview highlights plausible factors driving such lifetime variations in GH availability, i.e., estrogen, aromatizable androgen, hypothalamic peptides and negative feedback by GH and IGF-I. In view of the daunting complexity of potential neuromodulatory signals, we underline the utility of conceptualizing a simplified three-peptide regulatory ensemble of GHRH, GHRP (ghrelin) and somatostatin. The foregoing signals act as individual and conjoint mediators of adaptive GH control. Regulation is enforced at 3-fold complementary time scales, which embrace pulsatile (burst-like), entropic (orderly) and 24-h rhythmic (nycthemeral) modes of GH release. This unifying platform offers a convergent perspective of multivalent control of GH outflow.

Accelerated escape from GH autonegative feedback in midpuberty in males: evidence for time-delimited GH-induced somatostatinergic outflow in adolescent boys.

A single injected pulse of GH inhibits the time-delayed secretion of GH in the adult by way of central mechanisms that drive somatostatin and repress GHRH outflow. The marked amplification of spontaneous GH pulse amplitude in puberty poses an autoregulatory paradox. We postulated that this disparity might reflect unique relief of GH-induced autonegative feedback during this window of development. The present study contrasts GH autonegative feedback in: 1) normal prepubertal boys (PP) (n = 6; Tanner genital stage I, chronologically aged 8 yr, 9 months to 10 yr, 1 month; median bone age 8.5 yr); 2) longitudinally identified midpubertal boys (MP) (n = 6; Tanner genital stages III/IV, aged 12 yr, 6 months to 15 yr, 6 months; median bone age 15 yr); and 3) healthy young men (YM) (n = 6, aged 18-24 yr; bone age >18 yr). Subjects each underwent four randomly ordered tandem peptide infusions on separate mornings while fasting: i.e. 1) saline/saline infused iv bolus at 0830 h and 1030 h; 2) saline/GHRH (0.3 microg/kg i.v. bolus) at the foregoing times; 3) recombinant human (rh) GH (3 microg/kg as a 6-min square-wave i.v. pulse)/saline; and 4) rhGH and GHRH. To monitor GH autofeedback effects, blood samples were obtained every 10 min for 5.5 h beginning at 0800 h (30 min before GH or saline infusion). Serum GH concentrations were quantitated by ultrasensitive chemiluminometry (threshold 0.005 microg/liter). On the day of successive saline/saline infusion, MP boys maintained higher serum concentrations of: 1) GH ( microg/liter), 2.2 +/- 0.25, compared with PP (0.61 +/- 0.10) or YM (0.88 +/- 0.36) (P = 0.011); 2) IGF-I ( micro g/liter), 493 +/- 49 vs. PP (134 +/- 16) and YM (242 +/- 22) (P < 0.001); 3) T (ng/dl), 524 +/- 58 vs. PP (<20) (P < 0.001); and 4) E2 (pg/ml),19 +/- 3 vs. PP (< 10) (P = 0.030) (mean +/- SEM). Consecutive saline/GHRH infusion elicited comparable peak (absolute maximal) serum GH concentrations (micrograms per liter) in the three study groups, i.e. 18 +/- 5.0 (PP), 9.6 +/- 1.7 (MP), and 14 +/- 5.3 (YM) (each P < 0.01 vs. saline; P = NS cohort effect). Injection of rhGH attenuated subsequent GHRH-stimulated peak serum GH concentrations (micrograms per liter) to 7.8 +/- 1.9 (PP), 5.8 +/- 1.2 (MP), and 4.8 +/- 1.1 (YM) (each P < 0.01 vs. saline; P = NS pubertal effect). GH autofeedback reduced non-GHRH-stimulated (basal) serum GH concentrations by 0.74 +/- 0.28 (PP), 5.7 +/- 1.7 (MP) and 1.4 +/- 0.27 (YM) fold, compared with saline (P = 0.016 for MP vs. PP or YM). In addition to greater fractional autoinhibition, MP boys exhibited markedly accentuated postnadir escape (4.6-fold steeper slope) of suppressed GH concentrations (P < 0.001 vs. PP or YM). Linear regression analysis of data from all 18 subjects revealed that the fasting IGF-I concentration negatively predicted fold-autoinhibition of GHRH-stimulated peak GH release (r = -0.847, P = 0.006) and positively forecast fold-autoinhibition of basal GH release (r = +0.869, P < 0.001). In contrast, the kinetics of rhGH did not differ among the three study cohorts. In summary, boys in midpuberty manifest equivalent responsiveness to exogenous GHRH-stimulated GH secretion; heightened susceptibility to rhGH-induced fractional inhibition of endogenous secretagogue-driven GH release, compared with the prepubertal or adult male; and accelerated recovery of GH output after acute autonegative feedback. This novel tripartite mechanism could engender recurrent high-amplitude GH secretory bursts that mark sex hormone-dependent activation of the human somatotropic axis.

Mechanisms of conjoint failure of the somatotropic and gonadal axes in ageing men.

Endogenous growth hormone (GH) production falls by 50% every 7 years and bioavailable testosterone concentrations decline concomitantly by 12-15% every decade in ageing men. Despite this temporal parallelism, the neuroendocrine bases of the somatopause and gonadopause are not known. This knowledge deficit contrasts with the recent unfolding of new insights into the nature of oestrogen-dependent control of the GH-insulin-like growth factor (IGF)1 axis in pre- and postmenopausal women. The present overview examines the postulate that the pathophysiology of somatopause and gonadopause in ageing men is bidirectionally linked. According to this broader thesis, hyposomatotropism accentuates Leydig cell steroidogenic failure and, conversely, progressive androgen deficiency exacerbates the decline in GH-IGF1 output in ageing.

Impact of estradiol supplementation on dual peptidyl drive of GH secretion in postmenopausal women.

As an indirect probe of estrogen-regulated hypothalamic somatostatin restraint, the present study monitors the ability of short-term oral E2 supplementation to modulate GH secretion during combined continuous stimulation by recombinant human GHRH [GHRH-(1-44)-amide] and the potent and selective synthetic GH-releasing peptide, GHRP-2. According to a simplified tripeptidyl model of GH neuroregulation, the effects of estrogen in this dual secretagogue paradigm should mirror alterations in endogenous somatostatinergic signaling. To this end, seven healthy postmenopausal women underwent frequent (10-min) blood sampling for 24 h during simultaneous i.v. infusion of GHRH and GHRP-2 each at a rate of 1 microg/kg x h on d 10 of randomly ordered placebo or 17beta-estradiol (E2) (1 mg orally twice daily) replacement. Serum GH concentrations (n = 280/subject) were assayed by chemiluminescence. The resultant GH time series was evaluated by deconvolution analysis, the approximate entropy statistic, and cosine regression to quantitate pulsatile, entropic (feedback-sensitive), and 24-h rhythmic GH release, respectively. Statistical comparisons revealed that E2 repletion increased the mean (+/- SEM) serum E2 concentration to 222 +/- 26 pg/ml from 16 +/- 1.7 pg/ml during placebo (P < 0.001) and suppressed the serum LH by 48% (P = 0.0033), serum FSH by 64% (P < 0.001), and serum IGF-I by 44% (P = 0.021). Double peptidyl secretagogue stimulation elevated mean 24-h serum GH concentrations to 8.1 +/- 1.0 microg/liter (placebo) and 7.7 +/- 0.89 microg/liter (E2; P = NS) and evoked prominently pulsatile patterns of GH secretion. No primary measure of pulsatile or basal GH release was altered by the disparate sex steroid milieu, i.e. GH secretory burst amplitudes of 0.62 +/- 0.93 (placebo) and 0.72 +/- 0.16 (E2) microg/liter x min, GH pulse frequencies of 27 +/- 1.8 (placebo) and 23 +/- 1.9 (E2) events/24 h, GH half-lives of 12 +/- 0.74 (placebo) and 15 +/- 4.5 (E2) min, and basal (nonpulsatile) GH secretion 70 +/- 22 (placebo) and 57 +/- 18 (E2) ng/liter x min. The approximate entropy (ApEn) of serial GH release [1.297 +/- 0.061 (placebo) and 1.323 +/- 0.06 (E2)] and the mesor (cosine mean), amplitude, and acrophase (time of the maximum) of 24-h rhythmic GH secretion were likewise invariant of estrogen supplementation. Estimated statistical power exceeded 90% for detecting significant (P < 0.05) within-subject changes exceeding 30-50% in the mean serum GH concentration, GH ApEn, or GH mesor. In contrast, ApEn analysis of the evolution of successive GH secretory burst-mass values over 24 h disclosed that E2 replacement disrupts the serial regularity of pulsatile GH output (elevates the ApEn ratio) during combined GHRH/GHRP-2 stimulation (P = 0.004). In summary, short-term elevation of serum E2 concentrations in postmenopausal individuals into the midfollicular phase range observed in young women does not significantly alter 24-h basal, pulsatile, entropic, or nyctohemeral GH secretion monitored under continuous combined drive by GHRH and GHRP-2. As E2 repletion without enforced GHRH/GHRP-2 stimulation augments each of the foregoing regulated facets of GH release, we infer that one or both of the infused peptidyl secretagogues may itself participate in E2's short-term amplification of GH secretion in postmenopausal individuals. Estrogen's disruption of the orderliness of sequential GH pulse-mass values during fixed GHRH/GHRP-2 feedforward would be consistent with a subtle reduction in the release and/or actions of hypothalamic somatostatin or an (unexpected) direct pituitary action of the sex steroid. Whether comparable dynamics mediate the effects of endogenous estrogen on the GH axis in premenopausal women or pubertal girls is not known.

E2 supplementation selectively relieves GH's autonegative feedback on GH-releasing peptide-2-stimulated GH secretion.

Female gender confers resistance to GH autonegative feedback in the adult rat, thereby suggesting gonadal or estrogenic modulation of autoregulation of the somatotropic axis. Here we test the clinical hypothesis that short-term E2 replacement in ovariprival women reduces GH's repression of spontaneous, GHRH-, and GH-releasing peptide (GHRP)-stimulated GH secretion. To this end, we appraised GH autoinhibition in nine healthy postmenopausal volunteers during a prospective, randomly ordered supplementation with placebo vs. E [1 mg micronized 17 beta-E2 orally twice daily for 6-23 d]. The GH autofeedback paradigm consisted of a 6-min pulsed i.v. infusion of recombinant human GH (10 microg/kg square-wave injection) or saline (control) followed by i.v. bolus GHRH (1 microg/kg), GHRP-2 (1 microg/kg), or saline 2 h later. Blood was sampled every 10 min and serum GH concentrations were measured by chemiluminescence. Poststimulus GH release was quantitated by multiparameter deconvolution analysis using published biexponential kinetics and by the incremental peak serum GH concentration response (maximal poststimulus value minus prepeak nadir). Outcomes were analyzed on the logarithmic scale by mixed-effects ANOVA at a multiple-comparison type I error rate of 0.05. E2 supplementation increased the (mean +/- SEM) serum E2 concentration from 43 +/- 1.8 (control) to 121 +/- 4 pg/ml (E2) (158 +/- 6.6 to 440 +/- 15 pmol/liter; P < 0.001), lowered the 0800 h (preinfusion) serum IGF-I concentration from 127 +/- 7.7 to 73 +/- 3.6 microg/liter (P < 0.01), and amplified spontaneous pulsatile GH production from 7.5 +/- 1.1 to 13 +/- 2.3 microg/liter per 6 h (P = 0.020). In the absence of exogenously imposed GH autofeedback, E2 replacement enhanced the stimulatory effect of GHRP-2 on incremental peak GH release by 1.58-fold [95% confidence interval, 1.2- to 2.1-fold] (P = 0.0034) but did not alter the action of GHRH (0.83-fold [0.62- to 1.1-fold]). In the E2-deficient state, bolus GH infusion significantly inhibited subsequent spontaneous, GHRH-, and GHRP-induced incremental peak GH responses by, respectively, 33% (1-55%; P = 0.044 vs. saline), 79% (68-86%; P < 0.0001), and 54% (32-69%; P = 0.0002). E2 repletion failed to influence GH autofeedback on either spontaneous or GHRH-stimulated incremental peak GH output. In contrast, E2 replenishment augmented the GHRP-2-stimulated incremental peak GH response in the face of GH autoinhibition by 1.7-fold (1.2- to 2.5-fold; P = 0.009). Mechanistically, the latter effect of E2 mirrored its enhancement of GH-repressed/GHRP-2-stimulated GH secretory pulse mass, which rose by 1.5-fold (0.95- to 2.5-fold over placebo; P = 0.078). In summary, the present clinical investigation documents the ability of short-term oral E2 supplementation in postmenopausal women to selectively rescue GHRP-2 (but not spontaneous or GHRH)-stimulated GH secretion from autonegative feedback. The secretagogue specificity of E's relief of GH autoinhibition suggests that this sex steroid may enhance activity of the hypothalamopituitary GHRP-receptor/effector pathway.

Interactive regulation of postmenopausal growth hormone insulin-like growth factor axis by estrogen and growth hormone-releasing peptide-2.

Estrogen is the proximate sex steroid sustaining GH secretion throughout the human life span in both sexes. However, very little is known about the specific neuroendocrine mechanisms by which estrogen activates and maintains GH secretion in the young or aging human. The identification of somatostatin in 1973 as a key negative peptidyl regulator of the GH axis and the discovery of GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) in 1982 as a dominant feedforward agonist of GH secretion provided an initial basic science foundation for exploring sex-steroid control of the GH-IGF-1 axis. Although GH-releasing peptides (GHRPs) were first recognized in 1977-1981, subsequent cloning of hypothalamopituitary receptors transducing potent secretagogue actions of GHRPs in 1996 and of an endogenous ligand for this effector pathway in 1999 now extend the framework for examining the mechanisms of estrogen-driven GH secretion in aging. Herein, we review several novel and multifaceted interactions in postmenopausal women between estrogen and GHRP-2. We combine these observations into a simplified construct of GH-axis neuroregulation comprising the somatostatin, GHRH, and GHRP effector pathways, as well as GH and IGF-1 autofeedback. We suggest the thesis that estrogen controls the interfaces among these pivotal regulatory peptides in hyposomatotropic postmenopausal individuals.

Short-term estradiol supplementation augments growth hormone (GH) secretory responsiveness to dose-varying GH-releasing peptide infusions in healthy postmenopausal women.

Estrogen is a prominent stimulus to GH secretion throughout the human life span, albeit via neuroendocrine mechanisms that are incompletely defined. Here, we test the hypothesis that estradiol replacement in postmenopausal women enhances the responsiveness of the hypothalamo-pituitary unit to the GH-releasing effect of GH-releasing peptide-2 (GHRP-2). GHRP-2 is a potent and selective synthetic hexapeptide capable of activating an endogenous GHRP receptor/effector pathway, for which a (3)Ser-octanoylated 28-amino acid ligand was cloned recently. To examine this postulate, we studied 10 healthy estrogen-withdrawn postmenopausal women, who were given oral placebo or estrogen supplementation [1 mg micronized 17 beta-estradiol (E(2)) twice daily for 7-15 days] in a patient-blinded, prospective, randomized, and within-subject cross-over design. The GH-releasing actions of five semilogarithmically increasing doses of GHRP-2 (absolute range, 0.03-3 microg/kg by bolus iv infusion) vs. saline were evaluated by frequent blood sampling on separate days in the morning while fasting. Serum GH concentrations were determined in blood sampled every 10 min using an ultrasensitive chemiluminescence assay and analyzed by multiparameter deconvolution to calculate the summed mass of GH secreted during the 2-h interval after bolus GHRP-2 infusion. Logarithmically transformed secretory responses were compared across the different dosages of infused GHRP-2 by two-way repeated measures ANOVA. Estradiol replacement increased the global mean (+/-SEM) serum E(2) concentration from 15 +/- 0.8 to 470 +/- 17 pg/mL (55 +/- 2.9 to 1725 +/- 62 pmol/L; P = 0.004) and lowered insulin-like growth factor I levels by approximately 27% (P = 0.087). Administration of E(2) elevated the geometric mean basal (saline-infused) GH secretory burst mass by 2.1-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.4- to 3.1-fold) compared with placebo ingestion (geometric mean ratios; P < 0.001). E(2) exposure enhanced the efficacy of the highest GHRP-2 dose tested (3 microg/kg) by 2.1-fold (1.3- to 3.3-fold; P = 0.010). Compared with the effect of placebo and saline, E(2) combined with the highest dose of GHRP-2 stimulated GH secretory burst mass by a total of 31-fold (24- to 41-fold; P < 0.001). Random coefficient regression analysis of the relationship between the logarithm of GHRP-2 dose and GH secretory burst mass revealed that E(2) significantly augmented the amount of GH secreted per unit GHRP-2 dose (E(2), 16.6 +/- 1.8 slope units; placebo, 10.1 +/- 1.4 slope units; P = 0.03). Although the global mean endogenous GH half-life did not differ between the E(2) and placebo sessions (E(2), 18 +/- 0.6 min; placebo, 17 +/- 0.5 min), GH half-life varied directly with dose of GHRP-2 (and, hence, the mean serum GH concentration) in both the E(2) and placebo sessions (test of zero slope hypothesis, P = 0.0018). The deconvolved GH secretory burst peaked within 8-13 min of the bolus iv injection of GHRP-2, and this latency was not altered by E(2). Based on a mixed effects analysis of covariance model, GHRP-2 dose and E(2), but not the plasma insulin-like growth factor I concentration, determined the magnitude of the GH secretory response (P < 0.001). We conclude that short-term oral E(2) repletion in postmenopausal women selectively augments GH secretory pulse mass, enhances the steepness of the GHRP-2 dose-GH secretory response relationship (greater sensitivity), and heightens the maximal GH secretory response to the highest dose of GHRP-2 tested (greater efficacy). These data point to a facilitative interaction between E(2) and the GHRP receptor/effector pathway in driving the mass of GH secreted per burst.

Continuous 24-hour intravenous infusion of recombinant human growth hormone (GH)-releasing hormone-(1-44)-amide augments pulsatile, entropic, and daily rhythmic GH secretion in postmenopausal women equally in the estrogen-withdrawn and estrogen-supplemented states.

How estrogen amplifies GH secretion in the human is not known. The present study tests the clinical hypothesis that estradiol modulates the stimulatory actions of a primary GH feedforward signal, GHRH. To this end, we investigated the ability of short-term (7- to 12-day) supplementation with oral estradiol vs. placebo to modulate basal, pulsatile, entropic, and 24-h rhythmic GH secretion driven by a continuous iv infusion of recombinant human GHRH-(1--44)-amide vs. saline in nine healthy postmenopausal women. Volunteers underwent concurrent blood sampling every 10 min for 24 h on four occasions in a prospectively randomized, single blind, within-subject cross-over design (placebo/saline, placebo/GHRH, estradiol/saline, estradiol/GHRH). Intensively sampled serum GH concentrations were quantitated by ultrasensitive chemiluminescence assay. Basal, pulsatile, entropic (feedback-sensitive), and 24-h rhythmic modes of GH secretion were appraised by deconvolution analysis, the approximate entropy (ApEn) statistic, and cosine regression, respectively. ANOVA revealed that continuous iv infusion of GHRH in the estrogen-withdrawn (control) milieu 1) amplified individual basal (P = 0.00011) and pulsatile (P < 10(-13)) GH secretion rates by 12- and 11-fold, respectively; 2) augmented GH secretory burst mass and amplitude each by 10-fold (P < 10(-11)), without altering GH secretory burst frequency, duration, or half-life; 3) increased the disorderliness (ApEn) of GH release patterns (P = 0.0000002); 4) elevated the mesor (cosine mean) and amplitude of the 24-h rhythm in serum GH concentrations by nearly 30-fold (both P < 10(-12)); 5) induced a phase advance in the clocktime of the GH zenith (P = 0.021); and 6) evoked a new 24-h rhythm in GH secretory burst mass with a maximum at 0018 h GH (P < 10(-3)), while damping the mesor of the 24-h rhythm in GH interpulse intervals (P < 0.025). Estradiol supplementation alone 1) increased the 24-h mean and integrated serum GH concentration (P = 0.047); 2) augmented GH secretory burst mass (P: = 0.025) without influencing pulse frequency, duration, half-life, or basal secretion; 2) stimulated more irregular patterns of GH release (higher ApEn; P = 0.012); and 3) elevated the 24-h rhythmic GH mesor (P = 0.0005), but not amplitude. Notably, combined stimulation of the GH axis with GHRH-(1--44)-amide and estradiol exerted no further effect beyond that evoked by GHRH alone, except for normalizing the acrophase of 24-h GH rhythmic release and elevating the postinfusion plasma insulin-like growth factor I concentration (P = 0.016). Unexpectedly, the two GHRH-infused serum GH concentration profiles monitored after placebo and estradiol pretreatment showed strongly nonrandom synchrony with a 20- to 30-min lag (P < 0.001). In summary, the present clinical investigations unmask a 3-fold (pulsatile, entropic, and daily rhythmic) similitude between the neuroregulatory actions of estradiol and GHRH in healthy postmenopausal women. However, GHRH infusion was multifold more effectual than estradiol, and only GHRH elevated nonpulsatile (basal) GH secretion, shifted the GH acrophase, and synchronized GH profiles. Given the nonadditive nature of the joint effects of estradiol and GHRH on pulsatile and entropic GH release, we hypothesize that estrogen amplifies GH secretion in part by enhancing endogenous GHRH release or actions. In addition, the distinctive ability of GHRH (but not estradiol) to increase basal (nonpulsatile) GH secretion, shift the GH acrophase and synchronize GH output patterns identifies certain divergent hypothalamo-pituitary actions of these two major GH secretagogues.

Oral estradiol administration modulates continuous intravenous growth hormone (GH)-releasing peptide-2-driven GH secretion in postmenopausal women.

Exactly how estradiol (E2) regulates the human GH-insulin-like growth factor I axis is not known. Here, we explore the impact of oral E2 supplementation on the stimulatory actions of a potent and specific synthetic GH-releasing peptide (GHRP), GHRP-2. To this end, we studied 10 healthy postmenopausal women following the administration of placebo or 17beta-estradiol (1 mg twice daily orally) for 7-12 days in a prospectively randomized, double-blind, within-subject crossover design. To drive GH secretion via the GHRP-receptor/ effector pathway, we infused GHRP-2 (1 microg/kg x h) or saline continuously iv for 24 h. Deconvolution analysis was used to quantitate the separate basal and pulsatile modes of GH secretion based on 24-h serum GH concentrations profiles collected at 10-min intervals and assayed by chemiluminescence. As complementary (nonpulsatile) measures, we used the approximate entropy (ApEn) statistic and cosine regression to define feedback-dependent and circadian-related changes, respectively. E2 administration amplified the mass of GH secreted per burst by 1.9-fold over placebo, 24-h GHRP-2 infusion by 7.0-fold, and, the two agonists together by 8.8-fold (P < 10(-14)). Intravenous GHRP-2 infusion augmented the basal (nonpulsatile) rate of GH secretion by 4.4-fold (P < 10(-4)). E2 treatment had no effect alone, but doubled the stimulatory effect of GHRP-2, on basal GH secretion. Neither E2 nor GHRP-2 influenced 24-h GH pulse frequency, interburst interval, half-life or pulse duration. Combined E2 and GHRP-2 elevated the ApEn of GH secretory profiles significantly above control, thereby indicating a marked alteration of within-axis feedback control (P = 0.00033). Dual stimulation with E2 and GHRP-2 also synergistically increased the amplitude (by 11-fold, P < 10(-11)) and the mesor (by 10-fold, P < 10(-10)) of the 24-h GH rhythm. Infusion of GHRP-2 advanced the GH acrophase (time of daily maximum of GH release) by 8.75 h, whereas combined treatment with E2 and GHRP-2 normalized the acrophase. Cross-correlation analysis showed that GHRP-2 infusion (but not E2 administration) significantly synchronized paired 24-h serum GH concentration profiles (P < 10(-3)). In summary, short-term oral E2 replacement in post-menopausal women strongly modulates the actions of a synthetic hexapeptide GH secretagogue on three quantifiable modes of GH secretion [i.e. 1) basal (nonpulsatile) GH release; 2) feedback-dependent ApEn; and 3) the mesor, amplitude and timing of the 24-h GH rhythm]. Moreover, a continuous GHRP-2 stimulus also synchronizes inter diem GH secretory patterns. The present pharmacological study, thus, offers a further framework for exploring the nature of the interactions of E2 with the GHRP-receptor/effector pathway in the aging and/or gonadoprival human.

A paradoxical gender dissociation within the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor I axis during protracted critical illness.

Female gender appears to protect against adverse outcome from prolonged critical illness, a condition characterized by blunted and disorderly GH secretion and impaired anabolism. As a sexual dimorphism in the GH secretory pattern of healthy humans and rodents determines gender differences in metabolism, we here compared GH secretion and responsiveness to GH secretagogues in male and female protracted critically ill patients. GH secretion was quantified by deconvolution analysis and approximate entropy estimates of 9-h nocturnal time series in 9 male and 9 female patients matched for age (mean +/- SD, 67+/-11 and 67+/-15 yr), body mass index, severity and duration of illness, feeding, and medication. Serum concentrations of PRL, TSH, cortisol, and sex steroids were measured concomitantly. Serum levels of GH-binding protein, insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), IGF-binding proteins (IGFBPs), and PRL were compared with those of 50 male and 50 female community-living control subjects matched for age and body mass index. In a second study, GH responses to GHRH (1 microg/kg), GH-releasing peptide-2 (GHRP-2; 1 microg/ kg) and GHRH plus GHRP-2 (1 and 1 microg/kg) were examined in comparable, carefully matched male (n = 15) and female (n = 15) patients. Despite identical mean serum GH concentrations, total GH output, GH half-life, and number of GH pulses, critically ill men paradoxically presented with less pulsatile (mean +/- SD pulsatile GH fraction, 39+/-14% vs. 67+/-20%; P = 0.002) and more disorderly (approximate entropy, 0.946+/-0.113 vs. 0.805+/-0.147; P = 0.02) GH secretion than women. Serum IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and acid-labile subunit (ALS) levels were low in patients compared with controls, with male patients revealing lower IGF-I (P = 0.01) and ALS (P = 0.005) concentrations than female patients. Correspondingly, circulating IGF-I and ALS levels correlated positively with pulsatile (but not with nonpulsatile) GH secretion. Circulating levels of GH-binding protein and IGFBP-1, -2, and -6 were higher in patients than controls, without a detectable gender difference. In female patients, PRL levels were 3-fold higher, and TSH and cortisol tended to be higher than levels in males. In both genders, estrogen levels were more than 3-fold higher than normal, and testosterone (2.25+/-1.94 vs. 0.97+/-0.39 nmol/L; P = 0.03) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate concentrations were low. In male patients, low testosterone levels were related to reduced GH pulse amplitude (r = 0.91; P = 0.0008). GH responses to GHRH were relatively low and equal in critically ill men and women (7.3+/-9.4 vs. 7.8+/-4.1 microg/L; P = 0.99). GH responses to GHRP-2 in women (93+/-38 microg/L) were supranormal and higher (P<0.0001) than those in men (28+/-16 microg/L). Combining GHRH with GHRP-2 nullified this gender difference (77+/-58 in men vs. 120+/-69 microg/L in women; P = 0.4). In conclusion, a paradoxical gender dissociation within the GH/ IGF-I axis is evident in protracted critical illness, with men showing greater loss of pulsatility and regularity within the GH secretory pattern than women (despite indistinguishable total GH output) and concomitantly lower IGF-I and ALS levels. Less endogenous GHRH action in severely ill men compared with women, possibly due to profound hypoandrogenism, accompanying loss of the putative endogenous GHRP-like ligand action with prolonged stress in both genders may explain these novel findings.

Evaluation of Orntide microspheres in a rat animal model and correlation to in vitro release profiles.

Orntide acetate, a novel luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) antagonist, was prepared and evaluated in vivo in 30-day and 120-day sustained delivery formulations using a rat animal model. Orntide poly(d,l-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) and poly(d,l- lactide) (PLA) microspheres were prepared by a dispersion method and administered subcutaneously in a liquid vehicle to rats at 2.2 mg Orntide/kg of body weight (30-day forms) or 8.8 mg Orntide/kg (120-day forms). Serum levels of Orntide and testosterone were monitored by radioimmunoassays, and a dose-response study at 4 doses (3, 2.25, 1.5, and 1.75 mg Orntide/kg) was conducted to determine the effective dose of Orntide. Microspheres with diameters between 3.9 and 14 micron were prepared. The onset and duration of testosterone suppression varied for different microsphere formulations and were influenced both by polymer properties and by microsphere characteristics. Microspheres prepared with 50:50 and 75:25 copolymers effectively sustained peptide release for 14 to 28 days, whereas an 85:15 copolymer and the PLA microspheres extended the pharmacological response for more than 120 days. Increase in drug load generally accelerated peptide release from the microspheres, resulting in higher initial serum levels of Orntide and shorter duration of the release. In general, apparent release was faster in vivo than under in vitro conditions. Orntide microspheres effectively suppressed testosterone in rats, providing rapid onset of release and extended periods of chemical castration. Testosterone suppression occurred immediately after microsphere administration without the initial elevation seen with LHRH superagonists.

Tripartite neuroendocrine activation of the human growth hormone (GH) axis in women by continuous 24-hour GH-releasing peptide infusion: pulsatile, entropic, and nyctohemeral mechanisms.

Despite the discovery of potent GH-releasing peptides (GHRPs) more than 15 yr ago and the recent cloning of human, rat, and pig GHRP receptors in the hypothalamus and pituitary gland, the neuroregulatory mechanisms of action of GHRP agonists on the human hypothalamo-somatotroph unit are not well delineated. To gain such clinical insights, we evaluated the ultradian (pulsatile), entropic (pattern orderliness), and nyctohemeral GH secretory responses during continuous 24-h i.v. infusion of saline vs. the most potent clinically available hexapeptide, GHRP-2 (1 microg/kg x h) in estrogen-unreplaced (mean serum estradiol, 12 +/- 2.4 pg/mL) postmenopausal women (n = 7) in a paired, randomized design. Blood was sampled every 10 min for 24 h during infusions and was assayed by ultrasensitive GH chemiluminescence assay. Pulsatile GH secretion was quantitated by deconvolution analysis, orderliness of GH release patterns by the approximate entropy statistic, and 24-h GH rhythmicity by cosinor analysis. Statistical analysis revealed that GHRP-2 elicited a 7.7-fold increase in (24-h) mean serum (+/-SEM) GH concentrations, viz. from 0.32 +/- 0.042 (saline) to 2.4 +/- 0.34 microg/L (GHRP-2; P = 0.0006). This occurred via markedly stimulated pulsatile GH release, namely a 7.1-fold augmentation of GH secretory burst mass: 0.87 +/- 0.18 (control) vs. 6.3 +/- 1.3 microg/L (GHRP-2; P = 0.0038). Enhanced GH pulse mass reflected a commensurate 10-fold (P = 0.023) rise in GH secretory burst amplitude [maximal GH secretory rate (micrograms per L/min) attained within a secretory pulse] with no prolongation in event duration. GH burst frequency, interpulse interval, and calculated GH half-life were all invariant of GHRP-2 treatment. Concurrently, as detected in the ultrasensitive GH assay, GHRP-2 augmented deconvolution-estimated interpulse (basal) GH secretion by 4.5-fold (P = 0.025). The approximate entropy of 24-h serum GH concentration profiles rose significantly during GHRP-2 infusion; i.e. from 0.592 +/- 0.073 (saline) to 0.824 +/- 0.074 (GHRP-2; P = 0.0011), signifying more irregular or disorderly GH release patterns during secretagogue stimulation. Cosinor analysis of 24-h GH rhythms disclosed a significantly earlier (daytime) acrophase at 2138 h (+/- 140 min) during GHRP-2 stimulation vs. 0457 h (+/-42 min) during saline infusion (P = 0.013). Concomitantly, the cosinor amplitude rose 6-fold (P = 0.018), and the mesor (cosine mean) rose 5-fold (P = 0.003). Fasting (0800 h) plasma insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) concentrations rose by -11 +/- 12 microg/L during saline infusion and by 102 +/- 18 microg/L during GHRP-2 infusion (P = 0.0036). GHRP-2 infusion did not modify (24-h pooled) serum LH, FSH, or TSH concentrations and minimally increased serum (pooled) daily PRL (6.8 +/- 0.83 vs. 12 +/- 1.2 microg/L; P < 0.05) and cortisol (5.3 +/- 0.59 to 7.0 +/- 0.74; P < 0.05) concentrations. In summary, 24-h constant iv GHRP-2 infusion in the gonadoprival female neurophysiologically activates the GH-IGF-I axis by potentiating GH secretory burst mass and amplitude by 7- to 10-fold and augmenting the basal (nonpulsatile) GH secretion by 4.5-fold. GHRP-2 action is highly selective, as it does not alter GH secretory burst frequency, interpulse interval, event duration, or GH half-life. GHRP-2 effectively elevates IGF-I concentrations, unleashes greater disorderliness of GH release patterns, and heightens the 24-h rhythmicity of GH secretion. These tripartite features of GHRP-2's action in estrogen-withdrawn (postmenopausal) women also characterize normal human puberty and/or sex steroid regulation of the GH-IGF-I axis. However, how or whether GHRP-2 interacts further with sex hormone modulation of GH neurosecretory control in older women and men is not yet known.

Growth hormone (GH)-releasing peptide-6 requires endogenous hypothalamic GH-releasing hormone for maximal GH stimulation.

GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) is a potent GH secretagogue that releases GH by uncertain mechanisms. To assess whether GHRH is required for GH release by GHRP-6 in humans, we used the specific antagonist to GHRH (N-Ac-Tyr1,D-Arg2)GHRH(1-29)NH2 (GHRH Ant). We have previously shown that GHRH-Ant (400 microg/kg) blocked the GH response to 0.33 and 3.3 microg/kg boluses of GHRH by 95% and 81%, respectively. Nine healthy men between the ages of 20 and 30 yr were studied on two occasions. They received either saline or GHRH-Ant (400 microg/kg, i.v.) at 0840 h, followed by GHRP-6 (1 microg/kg, i.v. bolus) at 0900 h. Blood was sampled every 10 min from 0800-1100 h. GH responses were measured as the maximal increase over the baseline GH concentration and as the area under the curve. GHRH-Ant eliminated most of the GH response to GHRP-6 [maximal increase over the baseline GH concentration, 33.8 +/- 4.8 vs. 6.2 +/- 1.8 microg/L (mean +/- SEM; P < 0.0001); area under the curve, 1701 +/- 278 vs. 376 +/- 113 microg/min x L (P < 0.001)]. These data show that endogenous GHRH is necessary for most of the GH response to GHRP-6 in humans.

Presence of growth hormone secretagogue receptor messenger ribonucleic acid in human pituitary tumors and rat GH3 cells.

A novel G11-protein-coupled receptor specific for synthetic GH-releasing peptides (GHRPs) has recently been cloned and sequenced. Two forms exist, types 1a and 1b, the latter of which is biologically inactive. Using RT-PCR, we looked for the presence in tumorous pituitary cells of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) for this novel GH secretagogue receptor (GHS-R). Both subtypes of GHS-R mRNA were detected in all six human pituitary somatotropinomas removed from patients with acromegaly. In culture, four of the tumors exhibited strong responses to GHRP-2 in terms of both phosphatidylinositol (PI) hydrolysis and GH secretion, but two were resistant. There was no apparent difference in the type 1a and type 1b expression pattern, as judged by RT-PCR, between responsive and nonresponsive tumors. Similarly, the rat pituitary tumor cell line, GH3, was found to express GHS-R mRNA, although these cells also did not respond to GHRPs. RT-PCR failed to detect GHS-R mRNA in eight functionless human pituitary tumors. In contrast, prolactinomas were found to express the receptor and, in culture, significant stimulation of PRL secretion and PI hydrolysis occurred in two of three tumors tested. These results demonstrate that tumorous somatotrophs express the GHS-R gene and that the occasionally observed nonresponsiveness of somatotropinomas to GHRPs is not due to the absence of the biologically active type 1a receptor. Additionally, human pituitary prolactinomas also express GHS-R and are able to respond to GHRPs in terms of PI hydrolysis and PRL secretion. In contrast, GHS-R gene expression does not appear to be associated with human functionless pituitary tumors.

Thyrotrophin and prolactin release in prolonged critical illness: dynamics of spontaneous secretion and effects of growth hormone-secretagogues.

OBJECTIVE: Infusion of GH secretagogues appears to be a novel endocrine approach to reverse the catabolic state of critical illness, through amplification of the endogenously blunted GH secretion associated with a substantial IGF-I rise. Here we report the dynamic characteristics of spontaneous nightly TSH and PRL secretion during prolonged critical illness, together with the concomitant effects exerted by the administration of GH-secretagogues, GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) and GH-releasing peptide-2 (GHRP-2) in particular, on night-time TSH and PRL secretion. PATIENTS AND DESIGN: Twenty-six critically ill adults (mean +/- SEM age: 63 +/- 2 years) were studied during two consecutive nights (2100-0600 h). According to a weighed randomization, they received 1 of 4 combinations of infusions, within a randomized, cross-over design for each combination: placebo (one night) and GHRH (the next night) (n = 4); placebo and GHRP-2 (n = 10); GHRH and GHRP-2 (n = 6); GHRP-2 and GHRH + GHRP-2 (n = 6). Peptide infusions (duration 21 hours) were started after a bolus of 1 microgram/kg at 0900 h and infused (1 microgram/kg/h) until 0600 h. MEASUREMENTS: Serum concentrations of TSH and PRL were determined by IRMA every 20 minutes and T4, T3 and rT3 by RIA at 2100 h and 0600 h in each study night. Hormone secretion was quantified using deconvolution analysis. RESULTS: During prolonged critical illness, mean night-time serum concentrations of TSH (1.25 +/- 0.42 mlU/l) and PRL (9.4 +/- 0.9 micrograms/l) were low-normal. However, the proportion of TSH and PRL that was released in a pulsatile fashion was low (32 +/- 6% and 16 +/- 2.6%) and no nocturnal TSH or PRL surges were observed. The serum levels of T3 (0.64 +/- 0.06 nmol/l) were low and were positively related to the number of TSH bursts (R2 = 0.32; P = 0.03) and to the log of pulsatile TSH production (R2 = 0.34; P = 0.03). GHRP-2 infusion further reduced the proportion of TSH released in a pulsatile fashion to half that during placebo infusion (P = 0.02), without altering mean TSH levels. GHRH infusion increased mean TSH levels and pulsatile TSH production, 2-fold compared to placebo (P = 0.03) and 3-fold compared to GHRP-2 (P = 0.008). The addition of GHRP-2 to GHRH infusion abolished the stimulatory effect of GHRH on pulsatile TSH secretion. GHRP-2 infusion induced a small increase in mean PRL levels (21%; P = 0.02) and basal PRL secretion rate (49%; P = 0.02) compared to placebo, as did GHRH and GHRH + GHRP-2. CONCLUSIONS: The characterization of the specific pattern of anterior pituitary function during prolonged critical illness is herewith extended to the dynamics of TSH and PRL secretion: mean serum levels are low-normal, no noctumal surge is observed and the pulsatile fractions of TSH and PRL release are reduced, as was shown previously for GH. Low circulating thyroid hormone levels appear positively correlated with the reduced pulsatile TSH secretion, suggesting that they have, at least in part, a neuroendocrine origin. Finally, the opposite effects of different GH-secretagogues on TSH secretion further delineate particular linkages between the somatotrophic and thyrotrophic axes during critical illness.

GHRP-2, GHRH and SRIF interrelationships during chronic administration of GHRP-2 to humans.

Studies with chronic GHRP-2 or GHRH administration were performed to demonstrate and better understand the interrelationships between GHRP-2, GHRH and SRIF. Normal younger and older men and women received chronic GHRP-2, GHRH or GHRP-2 + GHRH for 7-30 days. It was demonstrated that chronic administration of either GHRP-2 or GHRH could convert an additive GHRP-2 + GHRH GH response to a synergistic one. In addition, the type of synergistic response induced by chronic GHRP-2 versus GHRH was different. Whether the GH response becomes desensitized during chronic administration depends in part on the dosage and frequency of administration. The potential to learn more about the in vivo actions of GHRP relative to the regulation of GH secretion is underscored by studying the GH responses to GHRP-2, GHRH and GHRP-2 + GHRH.

Protein kinase C-dependent growth hormone releasing peptides stimulate cyclic adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate production by human pituitary somatotropinomas expressing gsp oncogenes: evidence for crosstalk between transduction pathways.

The effects of the synthetic GH-releasing peptides, GHRP-2 and GHRP-6, on phosphatidylinositol (PI) hydrolysis and cAMP production have been examined in human pituitary somatotropinomas with and without adenylyl cyclase-activating gsp oncogenes. Both peptides dose-dependently stimulated the rate of PI hydrolysis and GH secretion by cell cultures of both types of somatotropinoma. GHRP-2 was considerably more potent than GHRP-6. The effects on GH secretion were reduced or abolished by phloretin, an inhibitor of protein kinase C, and W7, an inhibitor of calmodulin. However, antagonism of the GHRH-receptor and of protein kinase A with (N-Ac-Tyr1,D-Arg2)GRF-(1-29)-NH2 and Rp-adenosine-3',5'-cyclic monophosphothioate, respectively, did not alter the stimulatory effects of GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 on GH secretion. The effect of GHRP-2 and/or GHRP-6 on cAMP production was studied in 15 tumors, seven of which possessed constitutive adenylyl cyclase activity as evidenced by presence of gsp oncogenes. Both peptides stimulated cAMP production in the latter but not former types of tumor. Moreover, GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 potentiated the stimulation of cAMP production induced by GHRH and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide in tumors without gsp oncogenes. These results demonstrate that GHRP-2 and GHRP-6 exert identical effects on human pituitary somatotropinomas, except for differences in potency. Additionally, under conditions of adenylyl cyclase activity above basal levels (i.e. through stimulation of G2-protein coupled receptors or because of gsp oncogene expression), cAMP production can be increased even further by GHRP, providing evidence for cross-talk between the PI and adenylyl cyclase transduction systems in pituitary cells.

The effects of GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) and GHRP-2 on intracellular adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate (cAMP) levels and GH secretion in ovine and rat somatotrophs.

The mechanism of action of GH-releasing peptide-6 (GHRP-6) and GHRP-2 on GH release was investigated in ovine and rat pituitary cells in vitro. In partially purified sheep somatotrophs, GHRP-2 and GH-releasing factor (GRF) increased intracellular cyclic AMP (cAMP) concentrations and caused GH release in a dose-dependent manner; GHRP-6 did not increase cAMP levels. An additive effect of maximal doses of GRF and GHRP-2 was observed in both cAMP and GH levels whereas combined GHRP-6 and GHRP-2 at maximal doses produced an additive effect on GH release only. Pretreatment of the cells with MDL 12,330A, an adenylyl cyclase inhibitor, prevented cAMP accumulation and the subsequent release of GH that was caused by either GHRP-2 or GRF. The cAMP antagonist, Rp-cAMP also blocked GH release in response to GHRP-2 and GRF. The cAMP antagonist did not prevent the effect of GHRP-6 on GH secretion whereas MDL 12,330A partially reduced the effect. An antagonist for the GRF receptor, [Ac-Tyr1,D-Arg2]-GRF 1-29, significantly diminished the effect of GHRP-2 and GRF on cAMP accumulation and GH release, but did not affect GH release induced by GHRP-6. Somatostatin prevented cAMP accumulation and GH release responses to GHRP-2, GRF and GHRP-6. Ca2+ channel blockade did not affect the cAMP increase in response to GHRP-2 or GRF but totally prevented GH release in response to GHRP-2, GRF and GHRP-6. These results indicated that GHRP-2 acts on ovine pituitary somatotrophs to increase cAMP concentration in a manner similar to that of GRF; this occurs even during the blockade of Ca2+ influx. GHRP-6 caused GH release without an increase in intracellular cAMP levels. GH release in response to all three secretagogues was reduced by somatostatin and was dependent upon the influx of extracellular Ca2+. The additive effect of GHRP-2 and GRF or GHRP-6 suggested that the three peptides may act on different receptors. In rat pituitary cell cultures, GHRP-6 had no effect on cAMP levels, but potentiated the effect of GRF on cAMP accumulation. The synergistic effect of GRF and GHRP-6 on cAMP accumulation did not occur in sheep somatotrophs. Whereas GHRP-2 caused cAMP accumulation in sheep somatotrophs, it did not do so in rat pituitary cells. These data indicate species differences in the response of pituitary somatotrophs to the GHRPs and this is probably due to different subtypes of GHRP receptor in rat or sheep.