help button home button Endocrine Society Endocrinology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Matt, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hogan, M. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Matt, K. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hogan, M. P.

Endocrinology, Vol 115, 2098-2103, Copyright © 1984 by Endocrine Society


ARTICLES

Does prolactin modify testosterone feedback in the hamster? Suppression of plasma prolactin inhibits photoperiod-induced decreases in testosterone feedback sensitivity

KS Matt, A Bartke, MJ Soares, F Talamantes, A Hebert and MP Hogan

The hormonal changes during the photoperiodically driven annual reproductive cycle of the male golden hamster can be explained partially by a change in the sensitivity of the hypothalamo-pituitary axis to negative feedback by testosterone (T). The present studies test the hypothesis that the increases in plasma levels of LH and FSH that follow photo-stimulation are due to decreasing feedback sensitivity and examine if this change in sensitivity is dependent upon increasing PRL levels. Adult males were exposed to a lighting schedule of 5 h of light, 19 h of darkness (5:19) for 12 weeks to induce gonadal regression. The animals were castrated; treated with an inhibitor of PRL release, bromocriptine (CB-154), or oil; and received a Silastic capsule that was empty or filled with T. Subsequently, the animals were transferred to 14:10 and killed 9 or 31 days later. There were no significant changes in FSH and LH in animals receiving oil injections and empty implants between days 9 and 31, suggesting no steroid- independent changes in gonadotropin secretion during this time period. However, 4-mm T implants were more effective in suppressing LH and FSH levels on day 9 than on day 31. This suggests that there is a gradual decrease in feedback sensitivity to T following photostimulation. T was more effective in inhibiting LH and FSH levels in CB-154-treated than in oil-treated animals on both day 9 and day 31. Thus, increases in PRL release are instrumental in causing decreases in feedback sensitivity following photostimulation.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J AndrolHome page
A. Bartke
Prolactin in the Male: 25 Years Later
J Androl, September 1, 2004; 25(5): 661 - 666.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Biol. Reprod.Home page
J. M. Meredith,, F. W. Turek,, and J. E. Levine
Effects of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Pulse Frequency Modulation on the Reproductive Axis of Photoinhibited Male Siberian Hamsters
Biol Reprod, October 1, 1998; 59(4): 813 - 819.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
EndocrinologyHome page
R. W. Steger, V. Chandrashekar, W. Zhao, A. Bartke, and N. D. Horseman
Neuroendocrine and Reproductive Functions in Male Mice with Targeted Disruption of the Prolactin Gene
Endocrinology, September 1, 1998; 139(9): 3691 - 3695.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




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 © 1984 by The Endocrine Society