Bowers, Cyril Y.

Background: Systemic concentrations of T, estradiol (E2), GH, IGF-1, and IGF binding protein-3 decline in healthy aging individuals. Conversely, T and E2 stimulate GH and IGF-1 production in hypogonadal patients. Hypothesis: Because E2 stimulates GH secretion, putatively via the nuclear estrogen receptor-α and E2 and GH fall with menopause, we postulated that diminished endogenous E2 contributes to low GH output in older women. Location: The study was conducted at the Mayo Center for Clinical and Translational Science. Study Design: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled study in 60 healthy postmenopausal women treated with the following: 1) double placebo; 2) anastrozole, a potent inhibitor of aromatase-enzyme activity, which mediates E2 synthesis from T; and/or 3) fulvestrant, a selective estrogen receptor-α antagonist. Methods: GH pulse generation was quantified by frequent GH sampling before and after short-term iv somatostatin infusion, thought to induce hypothalamic GHRH-mediated rebound-like GH secretion. Results: On anastrozole, E2 fell from 3.1 ± 0.35 pg/mL to 0.36 ± 0.04 pg/mL, and estrone from 13 ± 1.4 pg/mL to 1.9 ± 0.01 pg/mL (P < .001) by mass spectrometry. Estrogen values were unchanged by fulvestrant. T concentrations did not change. One-hour peak GH rebound after somatostatin infusion declined markedly during both estrogen-deprivation schedules (P < .001). Mean (150 min) maximal GH rebound decreased comparably (P < .001). Measures of GH rebound correlated negatively with computed tomography-estimated abdominal visceral fat (all P < .05). Conclusion: These data suggest a previously unrecognized dependence of hypothalamo-pituitary GH regulation on low levels of endogenous estrogen after menopause.

Context: Hyposomatotropism in healthy aging women reflects in part physiological estrogen (estradiol [E2]) depletion associated with menopause. Objective and Design: The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that low concentrations of endogenous E2 after menopause continue to drive GH secretion. Setting: The study was performed at the Mayo Center for Clinical and Translational Science. Participants: The participants were 24 postmenopausal women (aged 50–77 years with body mass index of 19–32 kg/m2). Interventions: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-cohort treatment study with placebo (PL) (n = 14) or the antiestrogen fulvestrant (FUL) (n = 10) for 3 weeks, followed by infusion of l-arginine with saline, GHRH, ghrelin, or both peptide secretagogues. Outcomes: GH concentrations were measured over 6 hours with 10-minute sampling and mass spectrometry measures of testosterone, E2, and estrone. Results: Concentrations of testosterone, E2, estrone, SHBG, IGF-I, LH, and FSH were not influenced by antiestrogen treatment. In contrast, GH rose from 0.096 ± 0.018 (PL) to 0.23 ± 0.063 μg/L (FUL, P = .033), and IGF-I binding protein type 3 (IGFBP-3) from 3.6 ± 0.18 to 4.0 ± 2.0 mg/L (P = .041). Conversely, prolactin fell from 7.1 ± 0.69 (PL) to 5.5 ± 0.57 μg/L (FUL) (P = .05), and IGF-I binding protein type 1 (IGFBP-1) fell from 44 ± 9.4 to 27 ± 4.3 μg/L (P = .048). Moreover, FUL vs PL potentiated mean GH responses to l-arginine/saline (P = .007), l-arginine/ghrelin (P = .008), and l-arginine/GHRH + ghrelin (P = .031), but not l-arginine/GHRH. Conclusion: The potent antiestrogen, FUL, amplifies fasting and secretagogue-driven GH secretion and IGFBP-3 concentrations in postmenopausal women without altering SHBG or sex steroid levels. FUL also suppresses prolactin and IGFBP-1, without altering IGF-I. Thus, a major antiestrogen mediates 3 actions of estrogen: agonism (GH), neutral effects (sex steroids), and estrogen antagonism (prolactin and IGFBP-1).

Pulsatile growth hormone (GH) secretion putatively reflects integrated regulation by GH-releasing hormone (GHRH), somatostatin (SST), and GH-releasing peptide (GHRP). GHRH and SST secretion is itself pulsatile. However, how GHRH and SST pulses act along with GHRP to jointly determine pulsatile GH secretion is unclear. Moreover, how testosterone (T) modulates such interactions is unknown. These queries were assessed in a prospectively randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind cohort comprising 26 healthy older men randomized to testosterone (T) vs. placebo supplementation. Pulses of GHRH, SST, or saline were infused intravenously at 90-min intervals for 13 h, along with either continuous saline or ghrelin analog (GHRP-2). The train of pulses was followed by a triple stimulus (combined l-arginine, GHRH, and GHRP-2) to estimate near-maximal GH secretion over a final 3 h. Testosterone vs. placebo supplementation doubled pulsatile GH secretion during GHRH pulses combined with continuous saline (GHRH/saline) ( P < 0.01). Pulsatile GH secretion correlated positively with T concentrations (270–1,170 ng/dl) in the 26 men during saline pulses/saline ( P = 0.015, R2 = 0.24), GHRH pulses/saline ( P = 0.020, R2 = 0.22), and combined GHRH pulses/GHRP-2 ( P = 0.016, R2 = 0.25) infusions. Basal nonpulsatile GH secretion correlated with T during saline pulses/GHRP-2 drive ( P = 0.020, R2 = 0.16). By regression analysis, pulsatile GH secretion varied negatively with body mass index (BMI) during saline/GHRP-2 infusion ( P = 0.001, R2 = 0.36), as well as after the triple stimulus preceded by GHRH/GHRP-2 ( P = 0.013, R2 = 0.23). Mean (10-h) GH concentrations under GHRP-2 were predicted jointly by estradiol (positively) and BMI (negatively) ( P < 0.001, R2 = 0.520). These data indicate that estradiol, T, and BMI control pulsatile secretagogue-specific GH-regulatory mechanisms in older men.

Although stimulatory (feedforward) and inhibitory (feedback) dynamics jointly control neurohormone secretion, the factors that supervise feedback restraint are poorly understood. To parse the regulation of growth hormone (GH) escape from negative feedback, 25 healthy men and women were studied eight times each during an experimental GH feedback clamp. The clamp comprised combined bolus infusion of GH or saline and continuous stimulation by saline GH-releasing hormone (GHRH), GHRP-2, or both peptides after randomly ordered supplementation with placebo (both sexes) vs. E2 (estrogen; women) and T (testosterone; men). Endpoints were GH pulsatility and entropy (a model-free measure of feedback quenching). Gender determined recovery of pulsatile GH secretion from negative feedback in all four secretagog regimens (0.003 ≤ P ≤ 0.017 for women>men). Peptidyl secretagog controlled the mass, number, and duration of feedback-inhibited GH secretory bursts (each, P < 0.001). E2/T administration potentiated both pulsatile ( P = 0.006) and entropic ( P < 0.001) modes of GH recovery. IGF-I positively predicted the escape of GH secretory burst number and mode ( P = 0.022), whereas body mass index negatively forecast GH secretory burst number and mass ( P = 0.005). The composite of gender, body mass index, E2, IGF-I, and peptidyl secretagog strongly regulates the escape of pulsatile and entropic GH secretion from autonegative feedback. The ensemble factors identified in this preclinical investigation enlarge the dynamic model of GH control in humans.

To test the postulate that sex difference, sex steroids, and peptidyl secretagogues control GH autofeedback, 11 healthy postmenopausal women and 14 older men were each given 1) a single iv pulse of GH to enforce negative feedback and 2) continuous iv infusion of saline vs. combined GHRH/GHRP-2 to drive feedback escape during pharmacological estradiol (E2; women) or testosterone (T; men) supplementation vs. placebo in a double-blind, prospectively randomized crossover design. By three-way ANCOVA, sex difference, sex hormone treatment, peptide stimulation, and placebo/saline responses (covariate) controlled total (integrated) GH recovery during feedback (each P < 0.001). Both sex steroid milieu ( P = 0.019) and dual-peptide stimulation ( P < 0.001) determined nadir (maximally feedback-suppressed) GH concentrations. E2/T exposure elevated nadir GH concentrations during saline infusion ( P = 0.003), whereas dual-peptide infusion did so independently of T/E2 and sex difference ( P = 0.001). All three of sex difference ( P = 0.001), sex steroid treatment ( P = 0.005), and double-peptide stimulation ( P < 0.001) augmented recovery of peak (maximally feedback-escaped) GH concentrations. Peak GH responses to dual-peptidyl agonists were greater in women than in men ( P = 0.016). E2/T augmented peak GH recovery during saline infusion ( P < 0.001). Approximate entropy analysis corroborated independent effects of sex steroid treatment ( P = 0.012) and peptide infusion ( P < 0.001) on GH regularity. In summary, sex difference, sex steroid supplementation, and combined peptide drive influence nadir, peak, and entropic measurements of GH release under controlled negative feedback. To the degree that the pharmacological sex steroid, GH, and dual-peptide clamps provide prephysiological regulatory insights, these outcomes suggest major determinants of pulsatile GH secretion in the feedback domain.

Oligopeptide derivatives of metenkephalin were found to stimulate growth-hormone (GH) release directly by pituitary somatotrope cells in vitro in 1977. Members of this class of peptides and nonpeptidyl mimetics are referred to as GH secretagogues (GHSs). A specific guanosine triphosphatate-binding protein-associated heptahelical transmembrane receptor for GHS was cloned in 1996. An endogenous ligand for the GHS receptor, acylghrelin, was identified in 1999. Expression of ghrelin and homonymous receptor occurs in the brain, pituitary gland, stomach, endothelium/vascular smooth muscle, pancreas, placenta, intestine, heart, bone, and other tissues. Principal actions of this peptidergic system include stimulation of GH release via combined hypothalamopituitary mechanisms, orexigenesis (appetitive enhancement), insulinostasis (inhibition of insulin secretion), cardiovascular effects (decreased mean arterial pressure and vasodilation), stimulation of gastric motility and acid secretion, adipogenesis with repression of fat oxidation, and antiapoptosis (antagonism of endothelial, neuronal, and cardiomyocyte death). The array of known and proposed interactions of ghrelin with key metabolic signals makes ghrelin and its receptor prime targets for drug development.