D. Somjen et al., TISSUE-SELECTIVE ACTION OF TAMOXIFEN METHIODIDE, RALOXIFENE AND TAMOXIFEN ON CREATINE-KINASE-B ACTIVITY IN IN-VITRO AND IN-VIVO, Journal of steroid biochemistry and molecular biology, 59(5-6), 1996, pp. 389-396
We have compared the cell and tissue selective estrogenic and antiestr
ogenic activities of tamoxifen, raloxifene, ICI 164,384 and a permanen
tly ionized derivative of tamoxifen - tamoxifen methiodide (TMI). This
non-steroidal antiestrogen has limited ability to cross the blood bra
in barrier and is therefore less likely to cause the central nervous s
ystem disturbances caused by tamoxifen. We have used the stimulation o
f the specific activity of the ''estrogen induced protein'', creatine
kinase BE, as a response marker in bone, cartilage, uterine and adipos
e cells and in rat skeletal tissues, uterus and mesometrial adipose ti
ssue. In vitro, TMI, tamoxifen and raloxifene mimicked the agonistic a
ction of 17 beta-estradiol in ROS 17/2.8 rat osteogenic osteosarcoma,
female calvaria, and SaOS(2) human osteoblast cells. In Ishikawa endom
etrial cancer cells, tamoxifen showed reduced agonistic effects and ra
loxifene showed no stimulation. However, as antagonists, tamoxifen and
raloxifene were equally effective in Ishikawa or SaOS(2) cells. In im
mature rats, all four of the antiestrogens inhibited estrogen action i
n diaphysis, epiphysis, uterus and mesometrial adipose tissue; when ad
ministered alone, tamoxifen stimulated creatine kinase (CK) specific a
ctivity in all these tissues. Raloxifene and TMI, however, stimulated
only the skeletal tissues and had no stimulatory effect in the uterus
or mesometrial fat, and the pure antiestrogen ICI 164,384 showed no st
imulatory effect in any of the tissues. The simultaneous injection of
estrogen, plus an antiestrogen which acted as an agonist, resulted in
lower CK activity than after injection of either agent alone. These di
fferential effects, in vivo and in vitro, may point the way to a wider
therapeutic choice of an appropriate antiestrogen which, although ant
agonizing E(2) action in mammary cancer, can still protect against ost
eoporosis and cardiovascular disease and not stimulate the uterus with
its attendant undesirable changes, or interfere with the beneficial a
ction of E(2) in the brain. Copyright (C) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.