Advertisement

Journal of Endocrinological Investigation

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 21–27 | Cite as

Molecular composition of two different batches of urofollitropin: Analysis by immunofluorimetric assay, radioligand receptor assay and in vitro bioassay

  • M. Simoni
  • G. F. Weinbauer
  • E. Nieschlag
Announcement

Abstract

The molecular heterogeneity of two different batches of commercially available urofollitropin was analyzed after fractionation by isoelectric focusing (IEF). FSH was measured before and after IEF by a highly specific time-resolved immunofluorimetric assay (IFMA), by a radioligand receptor assay (RRA) employing a preparation of calf testis FSH receptors, and by the in vitro bioassay based on FSH-dependent aromatase stimulation in immature rat Sertoli cells. An overall good correspondence between the results obtained with the three different methods was observed. However, the RRA and the in vitro bioassay appeared to be more suitable than the IFMA in resolving individual FSH isoforms. The mean isoelectric points of the two FSH preparations analyzed were slightly different, due to different molecular composition. These differences, however, seem too minute to be considered as cause of the different pharmacokinetics of FSH described in the literature or to explain the inconsistent therapeutical results seen in patients treated with FSH of urinary origin.

Key words

FSH in vitro bioassay RRA IFMA isoforms of FSH 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zaidi A.A., Fröysa B., Diczfalusy E. Biological and immunological properties of different molecular species of human follicle-stimulating hor-mone: electrofocusing profiles of eight highly purified preparations. J. Endocrinol. 92: 195, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ulloa-Aguirre A., Espinoza R., Damian-Matsumura P., Chappel S.C. Immunological and biological potencies of the different molecular species of gonadotrophins. Hum. Reprod. 3:491, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ulloa-Aguirre A., Cravioto A., Damian-Matsumura P., Jimenez M., Zambrano E., Dìaz-Sanchez V. Biological characterization of the naturally occurring analogues of intrapituitary human follicle-stimulating hormone. Hum. Reprod. 7: 23, 1992.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harlin J., Khan S.A., Diczfalusy E. Molecular composition of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone in commercial go-nadotropin preparations. Fertil. Steril. 46: 1055, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diczfalusy E., Harlin J. Clinical-pharmacological studies on human menopausal gonadotrophin. Hum. Reprod. 3:21, 1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jockenhövel F., Fingscheidt E., Khan S.A., Behre H.M., Nieschlag E. Bio- and immunoactivity of FSH in serum after intra-muscular injection of highly purified urinary human FSH in normal men. Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf.) 33: 573, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Urban R.J., Padmanabhan V., Beitins I., Veldhuis J.D. Metabolic clearance of human follicle-stimulating hormone assessed by radioimmunoassay, immuno-radiometric assay, and in vitro Sertoli cell bioassay. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 73: 818, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simoni M., Weinbauer G.F., Chandolia R.K., Nieschlag E. Microheterogeneity of pituitary follicle-stimulating hormone in male rats: differential effects of the chronic androgen deprivation induced by castration or an-drogen blockade. J. Mol. Endocrinol. 9:175, 1992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jockenhövel F., Khan S.A., Nieschlag E. Diagnostic value of bioactive FSH in male infertility. Acta Endocrinol. (Copenh.) 121: 802, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Simoni M., Khan S.A., Nieschlag E. Serum follicle-stimulating hormone-like activity in hu-man pregnancy is a methodological artifact. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 73: 1118, 1991.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Simoni M., Nieschlag E. In vitro bioassays of follicle-stimulating hormone: methods and clinical applications. J. Endocrinol. Invest. 14: 983, 1991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng K.W. A radioreceptor assay for follicle-stimulating hormone. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 41: 581, 1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Calvo J.C., Radicella J.P., Charreau E.H. Measurement of specific radioactivities in labelled hormones by self-displacement analysis. Biochem. J. 212: 259, 1983.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Twenty-ninth report. WHO technical report series No. 626, 1978.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zaidi A.A., Robertson D.M., Diczfalusy E. Studies on the biological and immunological prop erties of human follitropin: profiles of two international reference preparations and an aqueous extract of pituitary glands after electrofocusing. Acta Endocrinol. (Copenh.) 97: 157, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jockenhövel F., Khan S.A., Nieschlag E. Varying dose-response characteristics of different immunoassays and in-vitro bioassay for FSH are re-sponsible for changing ratios of biologically active to immunologically active FSH. J. Endocrinol. 127: 523, 1990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Starring P.L., Gaines Das R.E. The international standard for pituitary FSH: collab-orative study of the standard and four other purified human FSH preparations of differing molecular com-position by bioassays, receptor assays and different immunoassay systems. J. Endocrinol. 123: 275, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE) 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Simoni
    • 1
  • G. F. Weinbauer
    • 1
  • E. Nieschlag
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Reproductive Medicine of the University and WHO Collaborating Center for Research in Human ReproductionMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations