A further study on the stimulatory effect of peptide histidine methionine on growth hormone secretion in acromegaly: a dose-related study and a comparison with vasoactive intestinal peptide

Human H9 cells proliferation is differently controlled by vasoactive intestinal peptide or peptide histidine methionine: implication of a GTP-insensitive form of VPAC1 receptor

The proliferation of human lymphoblastoma cell line (H9) was differently stimulated by Peptide Histidine Methionine (PHM) and Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide (VIP). PHM induced a cyclic AMP (cAMP) accumulation, abolished by Adenylate Cyclase (AC) inhibitors leading to a loss of proliferative effect. VIP mitogenic activity was Pertussis toxin (PTX) sensitive and AC inhibitors insensitive. Pharmacological experiments performed on H9 membranes with or without a GTP analogue indicated expression of both GTP-insensitive and -sensitive PHM/VIP high-affinity binding sites (HA). H9 cells expressed only the VPAC1 receptor. VIP(10-28), known as a VPAC1 antagonist, bond to all GTP-insensitive PHM sites and inhibited evenly the PHM and VIP mitogenic actions. These data strongly suggested different mechanisms initiated by VIP and PHM and highlighted the key role of GTP-insensitive binding sites in the control of cell proliferation.

Stimulation by neuropeptide Y of growth hormone secretion in prolactinoma in vivo

We examined the effects of intravenous bolus injection of human neuropeptide Y (NPY, 100 micrograms) on the plasma growth hormone (GH) and prolactin (PRL) responses in 15 patients with prolactinoma (PRLoma). The GH and PRL responses to NPY were considered positive (a paradoxical increase) when an increase over baseline of at least 100% occurred. Although NPY did not affect PRL secretion in any of the patients examined, 60% (9 of 15) of the patients showed a significant rise in GH secretion after NPY. The presence or absence of the positive paradoxical increase in GH after NPY was not related to the age of the patients, basal PRL levels, the size of the pituitary adenoma (macro- or microadenoma), or the presence or absence of suprasellar extension of the adenoma. Although the underlying mechanism of the NPY stimulation of GH secretion and also its pathophysiological significance in PRLoma are open to question, the present observation may represent another example of paradoxical hormone responses which are occasionally found in functioning pituitary adenomas.

Clinical significance of the growth hormone response to vasoactive intestinal peptide and gonadotropin-releasing hormone in acromegaly

GH-secreting pituitary adenomas causing acromegaly can be classified into at least two types, i.e. the lactotroph-like adenoma and somatotroph-like adenoma. From a functional point of view, the lactotroph-like adenoma is characterized by positive GH responses to TRH and bromocriptine (Br) with a GH increase or decrease, respectively, whereas the somatotroph-like adenoma is characterized by a high GH response to GHRH and a low GH response to TRH and Br. In this study, we examined whether the loading of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and GnRH, another hypothalamic hormone capable of stimulating GH secretion in acromegaly, have a pathophysiological significance as TRH, GHRH, and Br tests. In 52 patients with active acromegaly, we performed iv bolus injections of TRH (500 micrograms), GHRH (100 micrograms), VIP (100 micrograms), and GnRH (100 micrograms), and a peroral administration of Br (2.5 mg), in order to compare the GH responses to these loads. There was a significant correlation that the higher was the GH response after TRH the greater was the GH decrease after Br. Although statistically insignificant, there was a trend (0.05 < p < 0.1) that the higher was the GH response after GHRH the smaller was the GH decrease after Br. In addition, as novel findings, we observed that the GH responses to GHRH, VIP, and GnRH were in significant positive correlations to each other, and that the higher were the GH responses after VIP and GnRH the smaller was the GH decrease after Br. In agreement with this, we also found that a simultaneous GH responsivity to VIP and/or GnRH in TRH-responsive acromegalics significantly enhanced the GH response to GHRH and lowered the Br responsiveness compared to the data of pure TRH-responders. From these results, we hypothesize that the positive GH responsiveness to VIP and GnRH, like that to GHRH, may be a feature of the somatotroph-like pituitary adenoma causing acromegaly. The present results appear to be of some help in understanding the basis of the great variabilities in the GH responses to various dynamic testings in acromegaly.

Anomalous growth hormone response to vasoactive intestinal peptide and peptide histidine methionine in patients with prolactinoma or hypothalamic hyperprolactinemia

We examined a possible GH-releasing activity of vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and its homologous peptide, peptide histidine methionine (PHM), in 22 patients with hyperprolactinemia (HPRL) who comprised 19 cases of prolactinoma (PRLoma) and 3 cases of hypothalamic HPRL. Each patient underwent iv bolus injections of VIP (100 micrograms) and PHM (100 micrograms) on separate days, and plasma levels of GH and PRL were measured. The plasma GH response to VIP and PHM were considered positive (a paradoxical increase) when an increase over baseline of at least 50% occurred. In agreement with previous reports, the PRL-releasing activity of VIP and PHM in our patients with HPRL were subnormal. Thirteen (59%) patients showed a paradoxical rise in GH after VIP, and 4 (18%) patients did so after PHM. It is to be noted that all the 3 patients with hypothalamic HPRL responded to VIP with a significant rise in GH. 3 of the 4 PHM-responders were also responsive to VIP, which suggests that PHM may have activated VIP receptors in the pituitary of the PHM-responders as a partial agonist of the VIP receptor. The responders and nonresponders to VIP or PHM, respectively, had similar results with respect to the mean age, and the mean basal PRL and GH levels in the plasma. Since these paradoxical GH responses were observed in not only the patients with PRLoma but also those with hypothalamic HPRL, it may be that these anomalous GH responses in HPRL were due to the HPRL itself rather than due to the neoplastic lactotrophs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Lack of involvement of the cholinergic mechanism in vasoactive intestinal peptide- and peptide-histidine methionine-induced growth hormone (GH) responses in acromegaly: comparison with the GH responses to thyrotropin-releasing hormone and GH-releasing hormone

We examined whether the cholinergic mechanism is involved in the paradoxical GH responses to vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and peptide histidine methionine (PHM) in acromegaly. 28 patients with active acromegaly underwent i.v. bolus injections of thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH, 500 micrograms), GH-releasing hormone (GHRH, 100 micrograms), VIP (100 micrograms), and PHM (100 micrograms) with or without a prior atropine treatment (1 mg, i.m., 30 min before). Blood samples were collected before and at intervals up to 120 min after the injection, and plasma GH levels were measured. In response to TRH, GHRH, VIP and PHM, 23 (82%), 24 (86%), 13 (46%) and 7 (25%) patients, respectively, responded with a significant GH increase (> 50% and 6 micrograms/l above the basal level). The effect of atropine pretreatment was examined in only these responders to the respective peptides. When the GH responses were estimated by the area under the response curve, the atropine pretreatment was able to significantly suppress the GH response to GHRH, but not to TRH, VIP, or PHM. Although the lack of cholinergic involvement in the TRH-induced GH release in acromegaly is confirmatory to previous reports, the same results with the VIP- and PHM-induced GH release are novel. The present study may suggest that in acromegaly the physiological GH response is mediated by the cholinergic mechanism, but the paradoxical ones are not.

Contradictory clinical implications between paradoxical growth hormone responses to thyrotropin-releasing hormone and those to vasoactive intestinal peptide and luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone in acromegaly

There is an almost general agreement on the clinical significance of TRH and bromocriptine (Br) tests in acromegaly. That is that positive GH responses to these tests (with an increase or a decrease, respectively) are known to be very frequently associated with the presence of PRL-containing somatotroph adenomas of the pituitary. In this context, however, very little is known about the clinical significance of paradoxical GH responses to vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and LHRH in acromegaly. We therefore examined, as the principal objective of this study, whether a relationship exists among the GH (in some cases also PRL) responses to TRH, VIP, LHRH and Br in acromegaly. Another aim of this study was to examine whether a sexual difference exists in GH and PRL secretion in acromegaly. We examined a total of 24 patients comprising 8 men and 16 women. In agreement with previous reports, TRH-responders tended to have a higher level of basal PRL than TRH-nonresponders. In contrast, VIP-responders and LHRH-responders tended to have a lower PRL level than their respective counterparts. Although Br responsiveness was unexpectedly similar between TRH-responders and nonresponders, it was revealed that pure TRH-responders who were not responsive to VIP or LHRH were more sensitive to Br and more hyperprolactinemic than the remaining TRH-responders. This suggests that the simultaneous GH responsivity to VIP and/or LHRH in TRH-responders may be a factor which lowers their Br responsiveness and basal PRL levels. With respect to a sexual difference in GH and PRL secretion, it was revealed that female acromegalics had higher levels of basal GH and PRL than male patients. In addition, it was found that female acromegalics had supernormal levels of basal PRL, but a subnormal PRL responsiveness to TRH. As the major implication of this study, we hypothesize that the positive GH response to TRH associated with a high sensitivity to Br may, as already suggested, be characteristic of PRL-containing somatotroph adenomas, whereas the GH responsivity to VIP, and possibly also to LHRH, co-existing with no or low sensitivity to Br may be a feature of pure somatotroph adenomas. Although this study is devoid of immunohistochemical evidence to support this hypothesis, we suggest that the present in vivo data may be of some help in understanding the basis of the great variabilities in the GH responses to various dynamic testings in acromegaly.