P. Melamed et al., THE EFFECTS OF GONADAL DEVELOPMENT AND SEX STEROIDS ON GROWTH-HORMONESECRETION IN THE MALE TILAPIA HYBRID (OREOCHROMIS-NILOTICUS X OREOCHROMIS-AUREUS), Fish physiology and biochemistry, 14(4), 1995, pp. 267-277
Profiles of plasma growth hormone (GH) in male tilapia hybrid (Oreochr
omis niloticus x O. aureus) were measured and compared at different ti
mes of the year. The profiles did not appear to be repetitive, however
, differences in their nature were observed at the different seasons;
the most erratic profiles were seen in the height of the reproductive
season (July), while the peaks were more subdued in the spring and dis
appeared in the autumn. Peaks in male fish were more prominent than in
the females when measured in July. Perifused pituitary fragments from
fish with a high GSI responded to salmon gonadotropin-releasing hormo
ne (sGnRH) analog (10 nM-1 mu M), while those from fish with a low GSI
barely responded to even the highest dose. Exposure of perifused pitu
itary fragments from sexually-regressed fish to carp growth hormone-re
leasing hormone (cGHRH; 0.1 mu M) or sGnRH (1 mu M) stimulated GH rele
ase only after injection of the fish with methyl testosterone (MT; 3 i
njections of 0.4 mg kg-l). The same MT pretreatment did not alter the
response to dopamine (DA; 1 or 10 mu M). GH pituitary content in MT-tr
eated fish was lower than in control fish, which may be explained by t
he higher circulating GH levels in these fish, but does not account fo
r the increased response to the releasing hormones. Castration abolish
ed the response of cultured pituitary cells to sGnRH (1 fM-100 nM) wit
hout altering either their basal rate of secretion or circulating GH l
evels. Addition of steroids to the culture medium (MT or estradiol at
10 nM for 2 days) enabled a GH response to sGnRH stimulation in cells
from sexually regressed fish. Pituitary cells which had not been expos
ed to steroids failed to respond to sGnRH, although their response to
forskolin or TPA was similar to that of steroid-exposed cells. It woul
d appear, therefore, that at least one of the effects of the sex stero
ids on the response to GnRH is exerted proximally to the formation of
cAMP, or PKC, presumably at the level of the receptor. An increase in
the number of receptors to the GH-releasing hormones, following steroi
d exposure, would explain also the changing nature of the GH secretory
profile in different stages of the reproductive season.