|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(PGF2
) and Endothelin-1 (ET-1): Is ET-1 a Mediator of the Luteolytic Actions of PGF2
or a Tonic Inhibitor of Progesterone Secretion?1
Department of Biology,3 Eberly College of Arts and Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6057
Division of Animal and Veterinary Sciences,4 College of Agriculture, Forestry and Consumer Sciences, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6057
We examined the responsiveness of large luteal cells (LLC), small luteal cells (SLC), and endothelial cells of the Day 4 and Day 10 bovine corpus luteum (CL) to prostaglandin (PG) F2
and endothelin (ET)-1. Using a single-cell approach, we tested the ability of each agonist to increase the cytoplasmic concentration of calcium ions ([Ca2+]i) as function of luteal development. All tested concentrations of agonists significantly (P = 0.05) increased [Ca2+]i in all cell populations isolated from Day 4 and Day 10 CL. Day 10 steroidogenic cells were more responsive than Day 4 cells to PGF2
and ET-1. Response amplitudes and number of responding cells were affected significantly by agonist concentration, luteal development, and cell type. Response amplitudes were greater in LLC than in SLC; responses of maximal amplitude were elicited with lower agonist concentrations in Day 10 cells than in Day 4 cells. Furthermore, on Day 10, as the concentration of PGF2
increased, larger percentages of SLC responded. Endothelial cells responded maximally, regardless of agonist concentration and luteal development. In experiment 2, we tested the developmental responsiveness of total dispersed and steroidogenic-enriched cells to the inhibitory actions of PGF2
and ET-1 on basal and LH-stimulated progesterone accumulation. The potency of PGF2
steroidogenic-enriched cells on Day 4 was lower than on Day 10; in contrast, the potency of ET-1 was not different. Therefore, ET-1 was a tonic inhibitor of progesterone accumulation rather than a mediator of PGF2
action. The lower efficacy of PGF2
in the early CL more likely is related to signal transduction differences associated with its receptor at these two developmental stages than to the inability of PGF2
to up-regulate ET-1.
2 Correspondence: Jorge A. Flores, Department of Biology, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6057, Morgantown, WV 26506-6057. FAX: 304 293 6363; jflores{at}wvu.edu
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. D. Doerr, M. P. Goravanahally, J. D. Rhinehart, E. K. Inskeep, and J. A. Flores Effects of Endothelin Receptor Type-A and Type-B Antagonists on Prostaglandin F2alpha-Induced Luteolysis of the Sheep Corpus Luteum Biol Reprod, April 1, 2008; 78(4): 688 - 696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. Boiti, M. Maranesi, C. Dall'Aglio, L. Pascucci, G. Brecchia, A. Gobbetti, and M. Zerani Vasoactive Peptides in the Luteolytic Process Activated by PGF2alpha in Pseudopregnant Rabbits at Different Luteal Stages Biol Reprod, July 1, 2007; 77(1): 156 - 164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |