Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Previous studies have demonstrated that ligand-induced down-regulation of the LH/hCG receptor in rat corpus luteum results in a loss of ligand-binding activity and a parallel decline in steady state levels of receptor mRNA. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether this loss of receptor mRNA during receptor down-regulation is due to inhibition of transcription or increased degradation of the receptor mRNA. To differentiate between these two possibilities, nuclear run-off assays were performed to study transcription rates of nuclei isolated from control and hCG down-regulated rat ovaries. A 750-mer LH/hCG receptor cDNA probe, spanning the carboxy-terminal region of the peptide and the 3'-untranslated region of the receptor cDNA, was constructed by polymerase chain reaction. RNA transcripts were synthesized from existing nuclear RNA from control and down-regulated nuclei and hybridized to the receptor cDNA probe immobilized on nylon membranes and subjected to autoradiography. Hybridization to actin cDNA was also run alongside as a control. The results of run-off transcription analysis indicated that during down-regulation, the transcription rates of LH/hCG receptor mRNA are not decreased compared to those in saline-treated controls. Although no decrease in the transcription rates of the receptor mRNA was seen in the down-regulated state, the steady state levels of the receptor mRNA showed a decline when assayed by either solution hybridization or Northern blot analysis. Furthermore, hCG induced down-regulation appears to increase the transcriptional activity of the nuclei. Estimates of steady state LH/hCG receptor mRNA turnover rates indicate that the half-life of the message in down-regulated ovaries is markedly reduced compared to that in the control. It is concluded that the loss of steady state LH/hCG receptor mRNA is not due to a decrease in transcription, but probably represents an increased degradation of the receptor mRNA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: