ArticleEndocrinology1979
Comparison between the action of estradiol and that of the antiestrogen U 11-100 A on the induction in the rat uterus of a specific protein (the induced protein).
Article in Endocrinology, 1979. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- AssociatedPublication
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When measured by an in vitro approach, involving incubation in the presence of labeled leucine, the rate of synthesis of the specific estrogen-induced protein (IP) after in vivo stimulation of the rat uterus by the antiestrogens U 11-100 A (UA; 1-(2-[p-(3,4-dihydro-6-methoxy-2-phenyl-1-naphtyl)-phenoxy]ethyl)pyrrolidine hydrochloride) or CI-628 (alpha-[4-pyrrolidinoethyoxy]phenyl-4-methoxy-d-nitrostilbene) was very low compared to the response measured under the same conditions after in vivo stimulation with 17 beta-estradiol (E2). In the course of investigations aimed at clarifying the role of IP in estrogen action, we have conducted similar experiments, but the labeling step aimed at detecting and measuring IP synthesis was carried out in vivo. We have observed that UA promoted a full IP response which is lost or missed in incubated uteri. Similar results were obtained with CI-628 and tamoxifen. A comparison between IP responses obtained and measured in vivo after E2 and those after UA action revealed that the responses paralleled the number of receptors that are translocated to the nucleus by each compound. Thus, while transient after E2 treatment, the IP (or IP-like) response was maintained for as long as 12 h (as is the nuclear receptor occupancy) when UA was used as inducer. Several explanations for the disappearance of the UA-induced IP response under in vitro conditions are considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
488011What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.