Simoni M, Weinbauer G F, Nieschlag E
Institute of Reproductive Medicine of the University, Münster, Germany.
J Endocrinol Invest. 1993 Jan;16(1):21-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03345823.
The molecular heterogeneity of two different batches of commercially available urofolitropin was analyzed after fractionation by isoelectric focusing (IEF). FSH was measured before and after IEF by a highly specific time-resolved immunofluorimetric assay (IFMA), by a radioligand receptor assay (RRA) employing a preparation of calf testis FSH receptors, and by the in vitro bioassay based on FSH-dependent aromatase stimulation in immature rat Sertoli cells. An overall good correspondence between the results obtained with the three different methods was observed. However, the RRA and the in vitro bioassay appeared to be more suitable than the IFMA in resolving individual FSH isoforms. The mean isoelectric points of the two FSH preparations analyzed were slightly different, due to different molecular composition. These differences, however, seem too minute to be considered as cause of the different pharmacokinetics of FSH described in the literature or to explain the inconsistent therapeutical results seen in patients treated with FSH of urinary origin.
通过等电聚焦(IEF)分级分离后,对两批市售尿促卵泡素的分子异质性进行了分析。在IEF前后,通过高特异性时间分辨免疫荧光测定法(IFMA)、采用小牛睾丸FSH受体制剂的放射性配体受体测定法(RRA)以及基于未成熟大鼠支持细胞中FSH依赖性芳香化酶刺激的体外生物测定法来测量FSH。观察到三种不同方法所得结果总体上具有良好的一致性。然而,在分辨单个FSH异构体方面,RRA和体外生物测定法似乎比IFMA更合适。由于分子组成不同,所分析的两种FSH制剂的平均等电点略有差异。然而,这些差异似乎太小,不足以被视为文献中所述FSH不同药代动力学的原因,也无法解释使用尿源性FSH治疗的患者中出现的不一致治疗结果。