4.5 Article

Dynamics of in vivo release of molt-inhibiting hormone and crustacean hyperglycemic hormone in the shore crab, Carcinus maenas

期刊

ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 146, 期 12, 页码 5545-5551

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/en.2005-0859

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Very little is known regarding the release patterns or circulating titers of neuropeptides in crustaceans, in particular those concerned with regulation of molting hormone (ecdysteroid) synthesis, molt-inhibiting hormone (MIH), and crustacean hyperglycemic hormone (CHH), which is also an adaptive hormone, centrally important in carbohydrate metabolism. Furthermore, the currently accepted model of molt control is founded on an untested hypothesis suggesting that molting can proceed only after decline in MIH titer. Accordingly, we measured simultaneous circulating neuropeptide profiles for both MIH and CHH by RIA of purified hemolymph during the molt cycle at fine temporal scale during day/night cycles and seasonally. For CHH we additionally determined release patterns after physiologically relevant stress. Results show that both hormones are released exclusively and episodically, rather than continuously, with notably short half-lives in circulation, suggesting dynamic and short-lived variations in levels of both hormones. During the molt cycle, there are no overt changes in MIH titer, except a massive and unprecedented increase in MIH during late pre-molt, just before ecdysis. The function of this hormone surge is unknown. Treatment with various stressors (hypoxia, temperature shock) showed that CHH release occurs extremely rapidly, within minutes of stress. Release of CHH after stressful episodes during premolt (when gut endocrine cells synthesize large quantities of CHH) is exclusively from the sinus gland: CHH from the gut is never involved in the stress response. The results show a hitherto unsuspected dynamism in release of MIH and CHH and suggest that currently accepted models of molt control must be reconsidered.

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

4.5
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