Veldhuis, Johannes D.

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.

OBJECTIVE In patients with type 2 diabetes, glucagon levels are often increased. Furthermore, pulsatile secretion of insulin is disturbed in such patients. Whether pulsatile glucagon secretion is altered in type 2 diabetes is not known. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Twelve patients with type 2 diabetes and 13 nondiabetic individuals were examined in the fasting state and after mixed meal ingestion. Deconvolution analyses were performed on insulin and glucagon concentration time series sampled at 1-min intervals. RESULTS Both insulin and glucagon were secreted in distinct pulses, occurring at ∼5-min intervals. In patients with diabetes, postprandial insulin pulse mass was reduced by 74% (P &lt; 0.001). Glucagon concentrations were increased in the patients during fasting and after meal ingestion (P &lt; 0.05), specifically through an increased glucagon pulse mass (P &lt; 0.01). In healthy subjects, the increase in postprandial insulin levels was inversely related to respective glucagon levels (P &lt; 0.05). This relationship was absent in the fasting state and in patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS Glucagon and insulin are secreted in a coordinated, pulsatile manner. A plausible model is that the postprandial increase in insulin burst mass represses the corresponding glucagon pulses. Disruption of the insulin–glucagon interaction in patients with type 2 diabetes could potentially contribute to hyperglucagonemia.

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.

Luteinizing hormone (LH) administered in pharmacological amounts downregulates Leydig cell steroidogenesis. Whether reversible downregulation of physiological gonadotropin drive operates in vivo is unknown. Most of the analytical models of dose-response functions that have been constructed are biased by the assumption that no downregulation exists. The present study employs a new analytical platform to quantify potential (but not required) pulsatile cycles of LH-testosterone (T) dose-response stimulation, desensitization, and recovery (pulse-by-pulse hysteresis) in 26 healthy men sampled every 10 min for 24 h. A sensitivity-downregulation hysteresis construct predicted marked hysteresis with a median time delay to LH dose-response inflection within individual T pulses of 23 min and with median T pulse onset and recovery LH sensitivities of 1.1 and 0.10 slope unit, respectively ( P < 0.001). A potency-downregulation model yielded median estimates of one-half maximally stimulatory LH concentrations (EC50 values) of 0.66 and 7.5 IU/l for onset and recovery, respectively ( P < 0.001). An efficacy-downregulation formulation of hysteresis forecasts median LH efficacies of 20 and 8.3 ng·dl−1·min−1 for onset and offset of T secretory burst, respectively ( P = 0.002). Segmentation of the LH-T data by age suggested greater sensitivity, higher EC50 (increased LH potency), and markedly (2.7-fold) attenuated LH efficacy in older individuals. Each of the three hysteresis models yielded a marked ( P < 0.005) reduction in estimated model residual error compared with no hysteresis. In summary, model-based analyses allowing for (but not requiring) reversible pituitary-gonadal effector-response downregulation are consistent with a hypothesis of recurrent, brief cycles of LH-dependent stimulation, desensitization, and recovery of pulsatile T secretion in vivo and an age-associated reduction of LH efficacy. Prospective studies would be required to prove this aging effect.

Testosterone (T) exerts negative feedback on the hypothalamo-pituitary (GnRH-LH) unit, but the relative roles of the CNS and pituitary are not established. We postulated that relatively greater LH responses to flutamide (brain-permeant antiandrogen) than bicalutamide (brain-impermeant antiandrogen) should reflect greater feedback via CNS than pituitary/peripheral androgen receptor-dependent pathways. To this end, 24 healthy men ages 20–73 yr, BMI 21–32 kg/m2, participated in a prospective, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind crossover study of the effects of antiandrogen control of pulsatile, basal, and entropic (pattern regularity) measurements of LH secretion. Analysis of covariance revealed that flutamide but not bicalutamide 1) increased pulsatile LH secretion ( P = 0.003), 2) potentiated the age-related abbreviation of LH secretory bursts ( P = 0.025), 3) suppressed incremental GnRH-induced LH release ( P = 0.015), and 4) decreased the regularity of GnRH-stimulated LH release ( P = 0.012). Furthermore, the effect of flutamide exceeded that of bicalutamide in 1) raising mean LH ( P = 0.002) and T ( P = 0.017) concentrations, 2) accelerating LH pulse frequency ( P = 0.013), 3) amplifying total (basal plus pulsatile) LH ( P = 0.002) and T ( P < 0.001) secretion, 4) shortening LH secretory bursts ( P = 0.032), and 5) reducing LH secretory regularity ( P < 0.001). Both flutamide and bicalutamide elevated basal (nonpulsatile) LH secretion ( P < 0.001). These data suggest the hypothesis that topographically selective androgen receptor pathways mediate brain-predominant and pituitary-dependent feedback mechanisms in healthy men.

Pituitary ACTH drives adrenal glucocorticoid (cortisol) pulses via a time-delayed asymptotic dose-response process. To test the postulate that ACTH stimulates cortisol secretion dynamically (unequally during the initiation and termination of a cortisol secretory burst), a mathematical formalism was developed in which dose-response hysteretic shifts were allowed, but not required, within the time evolution of ACTH-cortisol pulse pairs. A dual-waveform deconvolution model was used to quantify cortisol secretion rates and reconstruct ACTH concentration profiles in 28 healthy adults previously sampled every 10 min for 24 h in the unstressed state (8,120 measurements). ACTH concentration-cortisol secretion dose-response functions were then estimated in each subject 1) without hysteresis (base model) and with allowances for possible hysteresis in 2) ACTH potency, 3) adrenal sensitivity, and 4) ACTH efficacy. Model residual error was 40% lower in the potency and sensitivity models and 20% lower in the efficacy model than in the base model ( P < 0.001). Mean time shifts for inferable hysteretic inflection were model-independent, i.e., grand mean (95% confidence interval) 22 (12–39) min after the onset of a cortisol secretory burst. Half-maximally effective ACTH concentrations (EC50) differed before and after hysteretic inflection within individual pulses: 1) 9.4 and 54 ng/l in the potency model ( P < 0.001) and 2) 8.9 and 123 ng/l in the sensitivity model ( P < 0.001) compared with 16 ng/l in the no-hysteresis model ( P < 0.001). In the efficacy-shift model, estimated maximal ACTH drive varied by 17-fold within cortisol secretory bursts (from 22 to 1.3 nmol·l−1·min cortisol secretion−1, P < 0.001). The collective results introduce the basis for modeling the dynamics of rapid, reversible physiological downregulation within the span of single interpulse intervals in vivo. This construct should have utility in parsing mechanisms of physiological regulation in other integrative systems.

AbstractBackground: Aging is associated with a decline in incremental LH pulse amplitude, which could be due to decreased GnRH secretion or impaired GnRH action.Hypothesis: Inconsistent published studies of GnRH action in older men may be due to disparate sex-steroid milieus.Facility: This study was conducted at a clinical translational-research unit.Subjects: We studied 16 healthy men (8 young men and 8 older men).Methods: An overnight transdermal testosterone (T) clamp was implemented before randomly ordered injections of 0, 2.5, 10, 25, 250, and 750 ng GnRH on separate days (96 study sessions).Outcomes: LH responses were quantified by variable-waveform deconvolution analysis.Results: The T clamp maintained age-invariant mean concentrations of total, bioavailable, and free T, SHBG, LH, FSH, and prolactin. By two-way analysis of covariance, GnRH dose (P &lt; 0.001) but not age (0.15 ≤ P ≤ 0.83) determined mean, peak, incremental, and pulsatile LH responses. Statistical power (median) was 95, 98, 90, and 99% to detect a 30% or greater age contrast at P ≤ 0.05 in mean, peak, incremental, and pulsatile LH responses, and greater than 99% to detect a 30% or greater age contrast in bioavailable or total T concentrations. Higher GnRH doses (P &lt; 0.001) abbreviated LH secretory bursts in both age groups.Conclusion: In the face of eugonadal concentrations of total, bioavailable, and free T, young and older men exhibit remarkably similar LH responses to a 300-fold dose range of exogenous GnRH. Accordingly, previously reported disparate effects of age on GnRH action may reflect in part age-discrepant sex-steroid milieus.

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.