4.7 Article

Transactivation assay for determination of glucocorticoid bioactivity in human serum

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 87, 期 8, 页码 3740-3744

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.87.8.3740

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a mammalian cell (COS-1) bioassay, which measures glucocorticoid bioactivity (GBA) directly from a small amount of human serum. The assay is based on the expression of human glucocorticoid receptor (GR) together with a coactivator protein and reporter plasmid containing GR response elements upstream of the luciferase gene. Ten microliters of human serum, in duplicate, are added directly to the cell culture medium, and GBA is derived from reporter gene activity. The assay differentiates between biopotencies of synthetic steroids, and importantly, mifepristone (RU486) is able to block glucocorticoid-induced response. The assay is sensitive (<15.6 nm cortisol in fetal calf serum) and precise, with the within- and between-assay coefficients of variation less than 8% and 10%, respectively. We measured serum GBA (bioassay) and cortisol (RIA) levels in 34 asthmatic children (age range, 5.7-14.2 yr) at baseline and after treatment with either inhaled budesonide (800 mug/d, n = 14), fluticasone propionate (500 mug/d, n = 14), or cromones (control group, n = 6). Pretreatment serum GBA and cortisol levels correlated strongly (r = 0.90, P < 0.0001, n = 34). Two months of treatment with inhaled budesonide resulted in excess GBA in circulation, which was not attributable to endogenous cortisol (P < 0.001). In the fluticasone propionate group, the presence of serum excess GBA was at the borderline of statistical significance (P < 0.08) after 2 months of inhalation therapy, and no excess GBA was detected in the cromone group. In conclusion, our bioassay enables measurement of mammalian cell response to bioactive glucocorticoids in circulation and provides a novel means to investigate patients receiving drugs acting through the GR.

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