help button home button Endocrine Society JCEM JCEM Call for Nominations for EIC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a related Letter to the Editor
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Copyright Permission
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Salameh, W.
Right arrow Articles by Swerdloff, R. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Salameh, W.
Right arrow Articles by Swerdloff, R. S.

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol 75, 1479-1483, Copyright © 1992 by Endocrine Society


ARTICLES

Effect of improved assay sensitivity on luteinizing hormone pulse detection after gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment in man

W Salameh, S Bhasin, BS Steiner, M Peterson and RS Swerdloff
Division of Endocrinology, Harbor-University of California-Los Angeles Medical Center, Torrance 90509.

When serum levels of a hormone are at or below the detection limit of the measurement system, accurate characterization and quantitation of pulsatile hormone secretion may be difficult. This point is well illustrated in this study, which used two immunoassays with markedly different assay sensitivities to quantitate pulsatile LH secretion in men in whom serum LH levels had been suppressed by the administration of a GnRH antagonist. Five normal men received 5 mg Nal-Glu, sc, daily for 21 days. Blood was drawn at 10-min intervals over 8 h on days 0 and 21. Samples were assayed in triplicate in both a conventional LH RIA with a sensitivity of 0.6-1.0 IU/L and a two-site-directed ultrasensitive immunofluorometric assay (IFMA) with assay sensitivity ranging from 0.05-0.125 IU/L. LH pulses were analyzed by Cluster analysis (C) and were corroborated by the Detect algorithm (D). Nal-Glu suppressed LH (C) pulse amplitude from 4.0 +/- 0.7 to 0.40 +/- 0.03 IU/L by LH RIA and from 7.8 +/- 2.1 to 0.21 +/- 0.04 IU/L by LH IFMA. An apparent reduction in LH pulse number was observed in the RIA data on day 21 by both pulse detection methods [4.2 +/- 0.4 vs 2.4 +/- 0.2/8 h on days 0 and 21 by C (P < 0.005); 5.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 2.8 +/- 0.7 by D (P < 0.05)]. However, the IFMA measurements in the same samples using the more sensitive LH IFMA showed no difference in pulse number between days 0 and 21. The RIA data correlated well with the IFMA data, with a concordance coefficient ranging from 0.66-0.9. In summary, the Nal-Glu GnRH antagonist markedly decreases LH pulse amplitude, but not pulse frequency. These observations are consistent with competitive inhibition of GnRH action at the pituitary site by the Nal-Glu antagonist; they indicate that assay characteristics can significantly affect quantitation of hormone pulse pattern and underscore the need for ultrasensitive LH assays for accurate assessment of LH pulse characteristics when LH levels are low or suppressed.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Endocrinology Endocrine Reviews J. Clin. End. & Metab.
Molecular Endocrinology Recent Prog. Horm. Res. All Endocrine Journals
Copyright © 1992 by The Endocrine Society