4.7 Article

Testosterone Suppresses Hepcidin in Men: A Potential Mechanism for Testosterone-Induced Erythrocytosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 95, 期 10, 页码 4743-4747

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2010-0864

关键词

-

资金

  1. Evans Medical Research Foundation
  2. National Institute on Aging [UO1AG14369]
  3. Boston Older American Independence Center [P30 AG031679]
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P30AG031679, U01AG014369] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: The mechanisms by which testosterone increases hemoglobin and hematocrit are unknown. Objective: The aim was to test the hypothesis that testosterone-induced increase in hematocrit is associated with suppression of the iron regulatory peptide hepcidin. Participants: Healthy younger men (ages 19-35 yr; n = 53) and older men (ages 59-75 yr; n = 56) were studied. Methods: Weekly doses of testosterone enanthate (25, 50, 125, 300, and 600 mg) were administered over 20 wk, whereas endogenous testosterone was suppressed by monthly GnRH agonist administration. Blood and serum parameters from each individual were measured at wk 0, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 20. Longitudinal analyses were performed to examine the relationship between hepcidin, hemoglobin, hematocrit, and testosterone while controlling for potential confounders. Results: High levels of testosterone markedly suppressed serum hepcidin within 1 wk. Hepcidin suppression in response to testosterone administration was dose-dependent in older men and more pronounced than in young men, and this corresponded to a greater rise in hemoglobin in older men. Serum hepcidin levels at 4 and 8 wk were predictive of change in hematocrit from baseline to peak levels. Conclusion: Testosterone administration is associated with suppression of serum hepcidin. Greater increases in hematocrit in older men during testosterone therapy are related to greater suppression of hepcidin. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 95: 4743-4747, 2010)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据