This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Copyright Permission Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Schwartz, N. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Schwartz, N. B.

Why I was Told not to Study Inhibin and What I did about it

Abstract

We entered the inhibin field accidentally. We were trying to account for our failure to inhibit serum FSH in the ovariectomized rat with estradiol plus progesterone. We were also puzzled by what accounted for the secondary FSH surge which follows the preovulatory gonadotropin surges in the rodent. It had been shown by others that once the primary surges occurred, the prolonged rise in serum FSH lasting to estrus was not dependent on further GnRH action. We wondered if the preovulatory LH surge turned off secretion from the ovary of an FSHsuppressing substance simultaneously with causing resumption of meiosis and ovulation (1, 2).

These observations suggested that another feedback hormone from the ovary might specifically be responsible for FSH negative feedback. But that sounded like the elusive nonsteroidal substance "inhibin" that scientists working with testicular feedback had been searching for since the early 1920s (3). Because of the failure to purify such a substance after so many years, the field was seen as "questionable" by many scientists.

Received June 7, 1991.