Endocrinology, Vol 105, 1248-1253, Copyright © 1979 by Endocrine Society

ARTICLES

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)

N Mairesse and P Galand

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.