Bc. Nindl et al., Immunofunctional vs immunoreactive growth hormone responses after resistance exercise in men and women, GROWTH H I, 10(2), 2000, pp. 99-103
Immunoassays for growth hormone (GH) may yield variable concentrations for
the same sample due to the molecular heterogeneity of growth hormone and ep
itope specificity of their antibodies. Strasburger et al. developed an "imm
unofunctional" assay that only detects those GH molecules possessing intact
sites 1 and 2, which are necessary for inducing receptor dimerization and
subsequent signal transduction. This study compared the immunoreactive (IR)
vs immunofunctional (IF) GH concentrations before and after acute resistan
ce exercise (i.e. six sets of 10 repetition maximum squats separated by 2 m
in rest periods) in 8 men and 6 women. IF concentrations were determined by
an ELISA(DSL) and IR GH by a monoclonal IRMA(Nichols). Both men (M) and wo
men (W) demonstrated similar increases for IR (M: 1.47 vs 25.0 ng/ml; W: 4.
0 vs 25.4 ng/ml) and IF (M: 0.55 vs 11.66 ng/ml; W: 1.94 vs 10.41 ng/ml) GH
following exercise. Post-exercise IF GH was significantly less than IR GH
for both M and W. The ratio of IR/IF after exercise was similar to 2 and si
milar for both M and W. In summary, dynamic exercise elicited a similar ris
e in M and W for immunofunctionally active GH molecules, but the magnitude
is lower than when detected with another conventional assay. (C) 2000 Harco
urt Publishers Ltd.