Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Previous studies have reported markedly lower biological potency of D-T3 than would be predicted from its relative affinity for the specific nuclear L-T3 receptor as measured in vitro. Studies were undertaken to define the basis of this discrepancy. In vitro studies of the relative binding affinities of [125I]L-T3 and [125I]D-T3 using either whole nuclei or partially purified solubilized receptor confirmed several previous reports which had indicated only small relative differences. The mean L/D binding ratio of all in vitro studies was 1.43. In contrast, we determined from measurement of final alpha-glycerophosphate dehydrogenase activity that the potency ratio (L/D) after seven daily injections of graded doses of L- and D-T3 was 6.7 for liver, with 95% confidence limits of 4.1 to 10.8, and 15.9 for heart, with 95% confidence limits of 5.1 to 50.2. Difference in biological potency could not be attributed to differences in the metabolism of L- and D-T3. Thus, tracer [125I]L- and [125I]D-T3 studies showed that the mean residence time, t, of L-T3 was not different from that of D-T3 [10.6 +/- (SE) 3.1 h vs. 11.4 +/- 3.8 h]. The MCR for L-T3 was 19.1 +/- 4.4 ml/h . 100 g BW and for D-T3, 26.1 +/- 5.6 ml/h . 100 g BW. The volume of distribution of L-T3 (181 ml/100 g BW) was 68% that of D-T3 (263 ml/100 g BW), in part owing to the 27% greater plasma binding (bp) of L-T3. Moreover, the calculated free hormone clearance (MCR X bp) of D-T3 was only 8% greater than for L-T3. Throughout the 24 h after injection of the [125I]L- or D-T3, concentrations of the D-enantiomer in liver were almost twice those of [125I]L-T3, whereas in heart [125I]D-T3 concentrations were half or less those of [125I]L-T3. Nevertheless, in both liver and heart, the integrated nuclear occupancy of L-T3 was 5 to 6 times that of D-T3, approaching the ratio in biological potency observed in the tissues. Thus, selective nuclear binding of L-T3 vs. D-T3 in vivo appears to be a major determinant in the relative biological effects of these enantiomers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schwartz et al. (1983) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: