Control of LH secretory-burst frequency and interpulse-interval regularity in women

Daniel M. Keenan,1 William S. Evans,2 and Johannes D. Veldhuis3

1Departments of Statistics and 2Internal Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, General Clinical Research Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908; and 3Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Medical and Graduate Schools of Medicine, General Clinical Research Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905

Submitted 27 March 2003 ; accepted in final form 23 June 2003


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 DISCLOSURES
 REFERENCES
 
Hypothalamic neurons generate discrete bursts of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and thereby pulses of luteinizing hormone (LH) at randomly timed intervals centered on a probabilistic mean frequency. We tested the hypothesis that physiological mechanisms govern not only the number but also the stochastic dispersion of the GnRH/LH pulse-renewal process in humans; for example, in young women in the early (EF) and late (LF) follicular and midluteal (ML) phases of the menstrual cycle (n = 18) and in postmenopausal individuals (PM, n = 16). To this end, we quantify stochastic interpulse variability by way of the order-independent, two-parameter Weibull renewal process (Keenan DM and Veldhuis J. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 281: R1917–R1924, 2001) and the sequence-specific, model-free approximate-entropy statistic (ApEn) (Pincus SM. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 2297–2301, 1991). Statistical testing unveiled 1) reduced probabilistic mean LH secretory-burst frequency (lower {lambda} of the Weibull distribution) in ML compared with each of EF, LF, and PM (P < 0.001); 2) quantifiably more regular LH interburst-interval sets (elevated {gamma} of the Weibull density) in PM than in each of EF, LF, and ML (P < 0.01); 3) uniquely prolonged latency to maximal LH secretion within individual secretory bursts in ML (P < 0.01); and 4) comparably mean random, sequential LH interburst-interval and mass values (normalized ApEn) among the distinct hormonal milieus. From these data, we postulate that sex steroids and age determine daily LH secretory-burst number, quantifiable pulse-renewal variability, and secretory-waveform evolution.

age; reproduction; human; female; pituitary; hypothalamus; leuteinizing hormone


DIRECT APPRAISAL of hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pulse-generator activity is not feasible in humans. However, the timing of discrete luteinizing hormone (LH) pulses in the peripheral circulation provides a surrogate marker of GnRH release in the setting of normal gonadotrope responsivity. The basis for this inference includes the strong concordance between episodic GnRH and LH release in the rodent, lagamorph, ruminant, and primate (3, 18, 20, 27, 31, 36, 49), the consistent correspondence between arcuate nucleus electrophysiological correlates of GnRH outflow and individual pulses of LH in jugular venous blood in the monkey and rat (9, 46), and the rapid suppressibility of peripheral LH pulses by immunoneutralization of GnRH or pharmacological blockade of GnRH reception (35, 37).

Synchronous GnRH neuronal firing and attendant LH secretory bursts recur at random intervals with no serial correlation of successive waiting times (1, 2, 12, 13). We recently highlighted the utility of quantifying the stochastic properties of the pulse-renewal process by the two-parameter Weibull probability distribution (10, 11). Unlike the derivative (1-parameter) Poisson process, the Weibull formulation statistically uncouples probabilistic mean event frequency from random variability in interevent delays. According to this analytic platform, there is physiological uncoupling of GnRH/LH pulse frequency (increased) and interburst waiting time variability (decreased) in the aging male with relative hypoandrogenemia (15).

The present investigation tests the hypothesis that marked contrasts in the availability of estradiol and progesterone to enforce feedback on the hypothalamopituitary unit in menstruating premenopausal and estrogen-withdrawn postmenopausal women (PM) govern stochastic behavior of the implicit GnRH pulse generator and the reconstructed waveform of LH secretory bursts.


    METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 DISCLOSURES
 REFERENCES
 
Subjects. Study cohorts comprised 18 normal premenopausal women [mean age 26 (range 18–38) yr] and 16 PM subjects [mean age 58 (range 43–70) yr]. Some volunteers had participated in an earlier independent analysis of LH production rates (14). Subjects provided voluntary, written, informed consent approved by the Institutional Review Board. Premenopausal volunteers were studied separately in the early follicular phase (EF; days 2–5 after onset of menses), late follicular phase (LF; 1–4 days before ovulation), and midluteal phase of the menstrual cycle (ML; days 5–8 after ovulation). The timing of ovulation was documented by serial transvaginal ultrasonography. The clinical diagnosis of menopause was affirmed by serum concentrations of FSH >50 IU/l and estradiol <20 pg/ml (72 pmol/l) and cessation of menstrual bleeding >12 mo earlier. Postmenopausal hormone replacement, if any, was discontinued at least 6 wk before the sampling procedure.

Clinical protocol. After overnight adaptation to the General Clinical Research Center, participants underwent repetitive (10-min) blood withdrawal over 24 h beginning at 0800. A forearm venous catheter was inserted at least 1 h before blood sampling. Subjects received breakfast, lunch, and dinner and were permitted to ambulate to the lavatory. Daytime naps, caffeinated beverages, and strenuous exercise were prohibited.

Hormone assays. LH concentrations were quantitated in duplicate by automated two-site monoclonal LH {beta}-subunitdirected immunoradiometric assay (Nichols Laboratories, San Juan Capistrano, CA; see Ref. 44). Sera collected from an individual subject (n = 145 samples) were assayed together. Sensitivity according to the first International Reference Preparation is 0.2 IU/l and cross-reactivity with free {alpha}- or LH {beta}-subunit <0.03%. Correlation with independent in vitro LH bioassay is r = +0.973 (45). The mean coefficient of variation (CV) within assays is 5.8% and between assays 8.3%.

Formulation of basal and pulsatile secretion convolved with elimination. Secretion and elimination parameters were estimated simultaneously from LH concentration time series, conditioned on estimated pulse onset times, as validated earlier on statistical and physiological grounds (Fig. 1 and Refs. 14, 17, and 42). Pulse onsets were identified by a previously described pulse detection method (14). The differential equation-based model incorporates pulse time estimation; combined pulsatile and basal release; biexponential hormone elimination kinetics; a flexible secretory-burst waveform; random effects on burst mass; and aggregate experimental uncertainty resulting from sample withdrawal, processing, and assay (12, 13, 15, 16). For a given set of pulse onset times (estimated in a first stage), the time-varying hormone concentration, X(t), is described by a set of differential equations (11), the solution of which is

where a is the relative proportion of rapid-to-total elimination amplitudes, {alpha}1 and {alpha}2 are the respective rate constants of the rapid and slow elimination phases, X(0) is the starting hormone concentration, {beta}0 is the basal secretion rate, t is time, and P(r)dr is the instantaneous pulsatile secretion rate over the infinitesimal time interval (r, r + dr) (see Ref. 11). Pulsatile secretion, P(r), is defined by the (summed) product of individual burst mass and the normalized secretory-event waveform

(2)

(3)

(4)
where Mj denotes the mass of hormone released in the jth burst (per unit distribution volume); Tj is a pulse time; {eta}0 is minimal releasable hormone in the gland; {eta}1 is a proportionality constant of time-dependent mass accumulation over the interval TjTj–1; Aj indicates random variability in the mass of the jth secretory burst; and {psi}(s) is the generalized three-parameter gamma family (normalized to integrate to 1).



View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Schematic overview of analytic reconstruction of primary secretion, elimination, and stochastic elements that drive time-varying neurohormone outflow. Ligand secretion and kinetic properties are quantified simultaneously, conditioned on estimated pulse-onset times (see METHODS).

 

The three-parameter waveform function {psi}(s) creates flexibility of secretory-burst shape by allowing variable ({beta}-specified) rates of upstroke, peak sharpness, and downstroke in the time-evolving release event (10). Specifically, allowable time asymmetry is achieved in the {psi} function, as well as accurate approximation to the symmetric Gaussian waveform (39).

The total secretion rate is given by Z(·) = {beta}0 + P(·), that is, the arithmetic sum of basal and pulsatile release processes.

The observed LH concentration profile is a discrete time sampling of the analytic reconvolution of the foregoing time-coupled continuous processes plus observational error (11, 14).

Model of pulse waiting times. We recently illustrated the utility of a Weibull renewal process model to describe random GnRH/LH and ACTH secretory-burst timing in the adult (10, 11, 15, 17). Mathematically, a renewal process (T k) results from the partial sums of incremental, independent, and identically distributed positive random variables, Si, with resultant Tk = {Sigma}ki=1 Si. A renewal process would encapsulate the expected intermittent output of an ensemble of randomly synchronized neurons, as inferred for GnRH neurons (7, 29, 34, 47, 48). The classical Poisson distribution defines a basic renewal process of probabilistic mean event frequency, {lambda}, in which the random variables, Si, have an exponential distribution with mean interval length, 1/{lambda}. The one-parameter Poisson model is limited in flexibility, since the mean and SD of interpulse-interval lengths are equal definitionally (15). The latter feature fixes the CV of waiting times at 100%, unlike inferred physiological variability of 20–40% for interpulse delays (6, 35, 38).

In a Weibull renewal process, the conditional density for Tk given Tk–1 is given by

(5)
where {lambda} denotes the probabilistic frequency (no. of events/unit time), and {gamma} defines the statistical regularity of the set of interevent delays (10, 15). The Weibull distribution, wherein {gamma} > 1, allows for greater regularity (CV <100%) than that of the derivative Poisson process defined by {gamma} = 1 (CV = 100%). The mean, variance, and CV of the Weibull probability density are

(6)

(7)

(8)
where {Gamma}(·) is the classical mathematical gamma function (the latter is unrelated mathematically to the parameter {gamma}). Accordingly, in the Weibull distribution, the CV of interpulse-interval lengths depends only on the parameter {gamma} (and not {lambda}, frequency). Higher {gamma} denotes relatively greater regularity (lesser variability) of the set of random waiting times.

Approximate entropy analysis of sequence orderliness. The approximate entropy (ApEn) statistic is a model-free, scale-invariant, and order-sensitive regularity statistic that quantifies subpattern consistency in numerical sequences (24, 26, 41, 43). The normalized ApEn ratio was calculated for parameter pairs defined by vector length m = 1 and threshold r = 0.2 for data series of length n >= 30 and m = 1 and r = 1.0 for n < 30 (25). The ApEn ratio is the quotient of random ApEn to observed ApEn, wherein random ApEn is estimated empirically here from 10,000 randomly shuffled versions (reordered without replacement) of the cognate series (41, 43). The ApEn ratio was applied to the succession of LH interpulse-interval lengths (min) and LH secretory-burst mass values (IU/l; normalized to preceding interpulse-interval length to decorrelate individual pulse mass from the {eta}1 term in Eq. 3).

Statistical analyses. The rate of secretory-burst evolution was compared by ANOVA followed by post hoc application of Tukey's multiple-comparison criterion. The outcome measure was the time latency to maximal secretion within a release event. Moreover, generalized likelihood ratio tests for {lambda} and {gamma}, based upon the Weibull model, were performed. End points were probabilistic frequency ({lambda}) and interburst regularity ({gamma}).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 DISCLOSURES
 REFERENCES
 
Figure 2 shows the serum LH concentration time series obtained by sampling peripheral blood every 10 min for 24 h in six premenopausal (two each in EF, LF, and ML) and six PM women. Plots depict observed and reconstructed (model-predicted) LH concentration profiles. The estimated pulse-onset times (see METHODS) are shown in Fig. 2. Indicated {gamma} values quantify the regularity of interpulse waiting times, with higher {gamma} denoting less variability (lower CV of the Weibull distribution). Figure 3 presents analytically predicted LH secretory profiles in one LF and one PM individual and inferred waveforms of LH secretory bursts ({psi} function). The waveform denotes the time evolution of instantaneous LH secretion normalized to unit area to permit shape comparisons independently of mass (see METH-ODS). Figure 4 summarizes statistical estimates of LH secretory-burst shape in all 34 subjects. ANOVA revealed that the rapid initial phase of LH secretion (time-to-peak LH release within any given burst) was significantly delayed in ML compared with that of each of EF, LF, and PM (P < 0.01).



View larger version (47K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Illustrative serum luteinizing hormone (LH) concentration time series (continuous lines) in 6 premenopausal [A; 2 each from early follicular (EF), late follicular (LF), and midluteal (ML)] and 6 postmenopausal (PM; B) women. Data were obtained by immunoradiometric assay of blood sampled every 10 min for 24 h beginning at 0800. Fitted curves (interrupted lines) are predicted by the differential equation-based model of combined pulsatile and basal secretion with biexponential elimination kinetics (Fig. 1). *Times of conditional pulse onset. Numerical {gamma} values (top left in each subpanel) quantify regularity of random interburst waiting times, wherein higher {gamma} of the two-parameter Weibull renewal process denotes greater regularity (see METHODS).

 


View larger version (36K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Analytic reconstruction of 24-h LH concentration and secretion profiles in an LF-phase young woman and post-menopausal individual. A: measured LH concentration time series (solid curve) and model-predicted pulse profile (dashed line). B: statistically forecast admixed pulsatile and basal rates of LH secretion. C: projected LH secretory-burst waveform, defined by the time evolution of instantaneous secretion rates within a given secretory event (unit area-normalized generalized gamma distribution). Data are presented otherwise as described in the legend of Fig. 2.

 


View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Individual estimates of analytically predicted LH secretory-burst waveform development in pre- and post-menopausal women. The y-axis gives the unit-area normalized rate of LH secretion and the x-axis the time after statistically defined onset of the pulse. Data are from 34 subjects [6 EF (A), 6 LF (B), 6ML(C), 16 PM (D)]. The heavy dashed and light dotted lines represent curves predicted by median and modal cohort-specific parameters of the generalized gamma probability distribution, respectively (see METHODS).

 

To monitor frequency and stochastic regularity of the LH pulse-renewal process, we quantified burst frequency and waiting time variability according to the Weibull process model. Figure 5 illustrates analytic predictions for the two individuals identified in Fig. 4. Figure 6 presents interpulse-interval probability distributions in all volunteers. Generalized likelihood ratio tests, based on the Weibull model, revealed 1) a 40% lower modal LH pulse frequency ({lambda}, 12 bursts/day) in ML than any of EF, LF, or PM (modal values 19–20; P < 0.01) and 2) an increased interburst interval regularity (elevated {gamma}) in PM compared with each of EF, LF, and ML (P < 0.001). In particular, individual {gamma} estimates were 2.9–5.4 (absolute range) in PM compared with cohort-specific modal values of 2.4–2.6 in the EF, LF, and ML. Figure 7 underscores the statistical and mechanistic independence of mean LH pulse frequency ({lambda}) and interburst-interval regularity ({gamma}) in each sex steroid milieu.



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Reconstruction of apparently random gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)/LH pulse-renewal properties. A: measured (10-min) LH concentrations over 24 h (continuous curves), estimated pulse-onset times (*), and model-estimated concentrations (dashed lines) in the 2 subjects (LF and PM) described in Fig. 2. B: stochastic (Weibull probability) distributions of interpulse-interval lengths (waiting times). {lambda} and {gamma} define the probabilistic frequency (no. of GnRH/LH secretory bursts evolving/24 h) and statistical regularity of randomly dispersed interburst-interval lengths, respectively. *Individual waiting times (min). {gamma} Values exceeding unity signify greater regularity (variability <100%) than that of the Poisson process [wherein {gamma} = 1 and the coefficient of variation of the process is definitionally 100%; see METHODS].

 


View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 6. Interpulse-interval (Weibull) probability distributions in 6 EF (A), 6 LF (B), 6 ML (C), and 16 PM (D) women. The x-axis gives interpulse-interval length (min) and the y-axis the corresponding probability of observing any given waiting time. *Individual interburst time delays. The heavy dashed line denotes the Weibull density defined by median cohort parameters.

 


View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 7. Joint plot of estimated LH secretory-burst frequency ({lambda}; y-axis) and regularity of waiting time distributions ({gamma}; x-axis; see METHODS). X denotes the mean value of {lambda} and {gamma} for that study group.

 

To quantify ad seriatim regularity of pulsatile LH release, we used the model-free, normalized ApEn ratio (see METHODS). Higher ApEn ratios (quotient of random to observed ApEn) define more orderly sequences (greater subpattern reproducibility). Figure 8 shows that ApEn ratios of successive LH interpulse-interval lengths and normalized secretory-burst mass values approach unity in the PM setting, thus approximating empirically mean random (based on ApEn recalculated on 10,000 shuffled versions of the cognate series). The foregoing estimates are consistent with stochastic renewal processes underlying the sequential timing and mass of secretory bursts (see DISCUSSION).



View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 8. Approximate entropy (ApEn) quantitation of the serial orderliness or regularity of pulsatile LH release in 34 healthy women (6 EF, 6 LF, 6 ML, 16 PM). ApEn ratios of successive LH interpulse intervals (A) and sequential LH pulse-mass values (decorrelated from preceding interpulse-interval length; B). The ApEn ratio is the mean quotient of random-to-observed ApEn, wherein random ApEn is estimated statistically by computing ApEn of each of 10,000 randomly shuffled surrogate versions of the observed time series. ApEn ratios of unity would denote empirically mean random sequences, whereas higher ApEn ratios define greater orderliness or regularity of the underlying process.

 


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 DISCLOSURES
 REFERENCES
 
Simultaneous analytic reconstruction of the apparent in vivo waveform of asymmetric LH secretory bursts, probabilistic mean GnRH/LH secretory-event frequency, and stochastic interpulse-interval variability unmasks novel regulatory contrasts in healthy young and older women. In particular, first, the inferred LH secretory-burst waveform (generalized gamma density) is uniquely skewed toward time-delayed maximal gonadotropin release in the ML compared with EF, LF, and PM settings. Second, the probabilistic mean frequency of LH secretory bursts ({lambda} of Weibull process) is singularly reduced in the ML compared with EF, LF, and PM contexts. Third, the quantifiable variability of the set of stochastically varying interpulse waiting times ({gamma} of Weibull probability density) is distinctively diminished in the PM compared with EF, LF, and ML environments. And fourth, the (virtual) lack of quantifiable orderliness of successive LH secretory-burst mass and interpulse waiting time values (ApEn ratio) in each female cohort studied is consistent with predictions of statistical renewal processes defined by random (uncorrelated) event evolution. In ensemble, these findings point to mechanistically independent physiological control of the asymmetric waveform of LH secretory bursts, the probabilistic mean frequency of the GnRH/LH pulse-renewal process, and the random variability inherent in interburst time delays.

The ML phase is marked by a prolonged latency to attain maximal LH release in reconstructed secretory bursts. This stage of the menstrual cycle exhibits combined elevations of estrogen and progesterone concentrations. Because the time-to-peak LH secretion was not delayed comparably in the estrogen-enriched LF phase in young women, we hypothesize that progesterone-predominant negative feedback may be mechanistically relevant in determining LH secretory-burst waveform. Such determination could occur via direct or indirect actions exerted at the hypothalamic and/or the pituitary level. In contradistinction to the presently postulated control of the time evolution of LH release within any given discrete secretory burst, earlier laboratory and clinical data indicate that progesterone is able to repress mean hypothalamic GnRH pulse frequency in an estrogen-enriched environment, as also implied here (6, 28, 30, 39, 40).

In principle, the time evolution of an LH secretory burst is determined jointly by the instantaneous sensitivity and secretory capacity of gonadotrope cells to a fixed GnRH stimulus, the aggregate impact of effectual pituitary feedback signals, and the amount and time course of the incoming GnRH impulse. In relation to gonadotrope responsiveness in a progesterone-replete milieu, bolus intravenous injection of a single submaximally effective dose of GnRH evokes abundant LH release in the ML phase of the human menstrual cycle (32). In the absence of analytic reconstruction of implicit LH secretory-burst shape, the latter and other available experiments do not in fact examine GnRH-stimulated LH waveform development. Estrogen and progesterone can exert rapid membrane-level and delayed nuclear effects directly on gonadotrope cell signaling and LH {beta}-subunit gene expression (4, 33). Whether such actions of sex steroids modulate the time evolution of the burst-like release of LH in vivo has not been elucidated.

The nature of the hypothalamic GnRH secretory-burst waveform in diverse sex steroid milieus and the precise impact of an individual GnRH secretory-burst time course on gonadotrope responses are not known. However, under in vitro perifusion and in vivo sampling conditions, the kinetics and the concentration of incident pulses of GnRH codetermine the amplitude, amount, and rate of consequent LH secretion (5, 8, 19). Accordingly, in principle, central-neural regulation of time-varying, burst-like GnRH outflow could also superintend LH pulse-waveform development in vivo. Definitive assessment of this fundamental issue will require direct and intensive sampling of GnRH secretory-burst evolution in hypothalamo-pituitary portal blood of the awake and unrestrained animal under experimentally defined sex steroid feedback.

The current formulation of stochastic LH pulse-renewal properties predicts commonality of probabilistic mean GnRH/LH pulse frequency in the EF, LF, and PM settings. This outcome diverges from some but not other earlier inferences (6). However, if corroborated in a larger cohort of healthy women, the present analyses would signify that estrogen availability per se is not a proximate determinant of the mean (nonpreovulatory) GnRH/LH pulse-renewal rate in humans. The latter proviso may be important in that the present data do not address the properties of random GnRH/LH secretory-burst timing during the preovulatory LH surge. Experimental inferences concerning the unique physiological transition that terminates the LF and introduces the luteal phase differ. For example, radiotelemetric monitoring of mediobasal hypothalamic multiunit electrical-bursting activity (a putative physiological correlate of GnRH pulses) suggests that discrete GnRH event frequency decreases or does not change during the preovulatory LH surge in the monkey and rat (22, 23). Other analyses based on systemic estimates of LH pulsatility and central monitoring of hypothalamo-pituitary portal-venous and cerebrospinal fluid GnRH pulsatility report amplification of GnRH pulse amplitude and variable acceleration of GnRH secretory-burst frequency during the ascending limb of the LH surge in the rat, monkey, and sheep (8, 21, 31, 36, 49). Such divergent insights would be consistent with species differences and more complex GnRH/LH regulatory mechanisms during the preovulatory interval (6).

Formulation of stochastic GnRH pulse timing as a two-parameter (Weibull) renewal process allows independent estimation of mean (probabilistic) pulse frequency (above) and interpulse-interval variability (10, 11). Regularity analysis revealed comparable (random) variability of GnRH/LH interpulse-waiting intervals in the EF, LF, and ML phases of menstruating young women and reduced variability (accentuated regularity) in PM individuals. Thematically complementary analyses have quantitated significant loss of expected young adult variability in GnRH/LH interpulse-time delays in older men (15). In contradistinction, model-free quantitation of the sequence-specific orderliness of interburst-interval lengths (by way of the scale-invariant ApEn statistic) supports the notion that a statistically random GnRH/LH burst-renewal process drives successive event times in each of the EF, LF, ML, and PM contexts. This outcome is the hallmark of a stochastic renewal process wherein the sequence of pulse times is independent (see METHODS). A significant reduction of young adult variability in the GnRH/LH burst-renewal process in the PM female and aging male raises important mechanistic questions. A foremost query is whether unknown hypothalamic interneuronal adaptations and/or diminished sex steroid negative feedback in the older human drive paradoxically heightened regularity of the GnRH neuronal pulse-generating system.

In summary, the present clinical investigation delineates tripartite physiological control of LH secretory-burst waveform, probabilistic mean frequency of GnRH/LH events, and statistical regularity of the GnRH/LH pulse-renewal process in healthy women. Accordingly, in conjunction with independent studies in young and older men, we postulate that the sex steroid milieu and age jointly determine discrete facets of GnRH/LH signal generation in the female and male.


    DISCLOSURES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 DISCLOSURES
 REFERENCES
 
Support was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants K01 AG-19164 and R01 DK MH-60717, Interdisciplinary Grant in the Mathematical Sciences DMS-0107680 from the National Science Foundation, and NIH Grant M01 RR-00845 to the Mayo Clinic and Foundation General Clinical Research Center.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Kandace Bradford for excellent assistance in text presentation and graphic illustrations.


    FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. D. Veldhuis, Div. of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Dept. of Internal Medicine, Mayo Medical and Graduate Schools of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (E-mail: veldhuis.johannes{at}mayo.edu).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 DISCLOSURES
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Butler JP, Spratt DI, O'Dea LSL, and Crowley Jr WF. Interpulse interval sequence of LH in normal men essentially constitutes a renewal process. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 250: E338–E340, 1986.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Camproux, AC, Thalabard, JC, and Thomas G. Stochastic modeling of the hypothalamic pulse generator activity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 267: E795–E800, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Clarke IJ and Cummins JT. The temporal relationship between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion in ovariectomized ewes. Endocrinology 111: 1737–1739, 1982.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Clarke IJ and Cummins JT. Direct pituitary effects of estrogen and progesterone on gonadotropin secretion in the ovariectomized ewe (Abstract). Neuroendocrinology 39: 267, 1984.[ISI][Medline]
  5. Clarke IJ, Cummins JT, Jenkins M, and Phillips DJ. The oestrogen-induced surge of LH requires a "signal" pattern of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone input to the pituitary gland in the ewe. J Endocrinol 122: 127–134, 1989.[Abstract]
  6. Evans WS, Sollenberger MJ, Booth Jr RA, Rogol AD, Urban RJ, Carlsen EC, Johnson ML, and Veldhuis JD. Contemporary aspects of discrete peak detection algorithms. II. The paradigm of the luteinizing hormone pulse signal in women. Endocr Rev 13: 81–104, 1992.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Funabashi T, Suyama K, Uemura T, Hirose M, Hirahara F, and Kimura F. Immortalized gonadotropin-releasing hormone neurons (GT1–7 cells) exhibit synchronous bursts of action potentials. Neuroendocrinology 73: 157–165, 2001.[ISI][Medline]
  8. Handelsman DJ, Cummins JT, and Clarke IJ. Pharmacodynamics of gonadotropin-releasing hormone. I. Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone pulse contour on pituitary luteinizing hormone secretion in vivo in sheep (Abstract). Neuroendocrinology 48: 432, 1988.[ISI][Medline]
  9. Hiruma H, Nishihara M, and Kimura F. Hypothalamic electrical activity that relates to the pulsatile release of luteinizing hormone exhibits diurnal variation in ovariectomized rats. Brain Res 582: 119–122, 1992.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Keenan DM, Licinio J, and Veldhuis JD. A feedback-controlled ensemble model of the stress-responsive hypothalamopituitary-adrenal axis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 4028–4033, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Keenan DM, Sun W, and Veldhuis JD. A stochastic biomathematical model of the male reproductive hormone system. SIAM J Appl Math 61: 934–965, 2000.[ISI]
  12. Keenan DM and Veldhuis JD. Stochastic model of admixed basal and pulsatile hormone secretion as modulated by a deterministic oscillator. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 273: R1182–R1192, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Keenan DM and Veldhuis JD. A biomathematical model of time-delayed feedback in the human male hypothalamic-pituitary-Leydig cell axis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 275: E157–E176, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Keenan DM and Veldhuis JD. Explicating hypergonadotropism in postmenopausal women: a statistical model. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 278: R1247–R1257, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Keenan DM and Veldhuis JD. Disruption of the hypothalamic luteinizing-hormone pulsing mechanism in aging men. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 281: R1917–R1924, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Keenan DM and Veldhuis JD. Hypothesis testing of the aging male gonadal axis via a biomathematical construct. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 280: R1755–R1771, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Keenan DM, Veldhuis JD, and Yang R. Joint recovery of pulsatile and basal hormone secretion by stochastic nonlinear random-effects analysis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 274: R1939–R1949, 1998.
  18. Levine JE, Pau K-YF, Ramirez VD, and Jackson GL. Simultaneous measurement of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone and luteinizing hormone release in unanesthetized, ovariectomized sheep. Endocrinology 11: 1449–1455, 1982.
  19. McIntosh JEA and Murray-McIntosh RP. Modeling the impact of neuroendocrine secretogogue pulse trains on hormone secretion. Methods Neurosci 28: 324–333, 1995.
  20. Moenter SM, Brand RM, Midgley Jr AR, and Karsch FJ. Dynamics of gonadotropin-releasing hormone release during a pulse. Endocrinology 130: 503–510, 1992.[Abstract]
  21. Moenter SM, Caraty A, Locatelli A, and Karsch FJ. Pattern of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion leading up to ovulation in the ewe: existence of a preovulatory GnRH surge. Endocrinology 129: 1175–1182, 1991.[Abstract]
  22. Nishihara M, Sano A, and Kimura F. Cessation of the electrical activity of gonadotropin-releasing hormone pulse generator during the steroid-induced surge of luteinizing hormone in the rat. Neuroendocrinology 59: 513–519, 1994.[ISI][Medline]
  23. O'Byrne KT, Thalabard J-C, Grosser PM, Wilson RC, Williams CL, Chen M-D, Ladendorf D, Hatchkiss J, and Knobil E. Radioelementric monitoring of hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasing hormone pulse generator activity throughout the menstrual cycle of the rhesus monkey (Abstract). Endocrinology 129: 1991.
  24. Pincus SM. Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88: 2297–2301, 1991.[Abstract]
  25. Pincus SM, Hartman ML, Roelfsema F, Thorner MO, and Veldhuis JD. Hormone pulsatility discrimination via coarse and short time sampling. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 277: E948–E957, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Pincus SM and Keefe DL. Quantification of hormone pulsatility via an approximate entropy algorithm. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 262: E741–E754, 1992.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Ramirez VD, Ramirez AD, Slamet W, and Nduka E. Functional characteristics of the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone pulse generator in conscious unrestrained female rabbits: activation by norepinephrine. Endocrinology 118: 2331–2339, 1986.[Abstract]
  28. Rebar R, Perlman D, Naftolin F, and Yen SSC. The estimation of pituitary luteinizing hormone secretion. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 37: 917–927, 1973.[ISI][Medline]
  29. Rubin BS. Hypothalamic alterations and reproductive aging in female rats: evidence of altered luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone neuronal function. Biol Reprod 63: 968–976, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Sartorio A, Pizzocaro A, Liberati D, De Nicolao G, Veldhuis JD, and Faglia G. Abnormal LH pulsatility in women with hyperprolactinaemic amenorrhea normalizes after bromocriptine treatment: deconvolution-based assessment. Clin Endocrinol Metab 52: 703–712, 2000.
  31. Skinner DC, Malpaux B, Delaleu B, and Caraty A. Luteinizing hormone (LH)-releasing hormone in third ventricular cerebrospinal fluid of the ewe: correlation with LH pulses and the LH surge. Endocrinology 136: 3230–3237, 1995.[Abstract]
  32. Sollenberger MJ, Carlsen ES, Booth Jr RA, Johnson ML, Veldhuis JD, and Evans WS. Nature of gonadotropin-releasing hormone self-priming of LH secretion during the normal menstrual cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163: 1529–1534, 1990.[ISI][Medline]
  33. Stojikovic SS and Catt KJ. Calcium oscillations in anterior pituitary cells. Endocr Rev 13: 256–280, 1992.[ISI][Medline]
  34. Suter KJ, Wuarin JP, Smith BN, Dudek FE, and Moenter SM. Whole-cell recordings from preoptic/hypothalamic slices reveal burst firing in gonadotropin-releasing hormone neurons identified with green fluorescent protein in transgenic mice. Endocrinology 141: 3731–3736, 2000.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Urban RJ, Evans WS, Rogol AD, Kaiser DL, Johnson ML, and Veldhuis JD. Contemporary aspects of discrete peak detection algorithms. I. The paradigm of the luteinizing hormone pulse signal in men. Endocr Rev 9: 3–37, 1988.[ISI][Medline]
  36. van Vugt DA, Diefenbach WD, Alston E, and Ferin M. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone pulses in third ventricular cerebrospinal fluid of ovariectomized rhesus monkeys: correlation with luteinizing hormone pulses. Endocrinology 117: 1550–1558, 1985.[Abstract]
  37. Veldhuis JD. Male hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis. In: Reproductive Endocrinology, edited by Yen SSC, Jaffe RB, and Barbieri RL. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1999, p. 622–631.
  38. Veldhuis JD. The neuroendocrine control of ultradian rhythms. In: Neuroendocrinology in Physiology and Medicine, edited by Conn PM and Freeman M. Totowa, NJ: Humana, 1999, p. 453–472.
  39. Veldhuis JD, Carlson ML, and Johnson ML. The pituitary gland secretes in bursts: appraising the nature of glandular secretory impulses by simultaneous multiple-parameter deconvolution of plasma hormone concentrations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84: 7686–7690, 1987.[Abstract]
  40. Veldhuis JD, Guardabasso V, Rogol AD, Evans WS, Oerter KE, Johnson ML, and Rodbard D. Appraising the nature of luteinizing hormone secretory events in man. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 252: E599–E605, 1987.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  41. Veldhuis JD, Johnson ML, Veldhuis OL, Straume M, and Pincus S. Impact of pulsatility on the ensemble orderliness (approximate entropy) of neurohormone secretion. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 281: R1975–R1985, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Veldhuis JD, Keenan DM, Clarke I, Alexandre S, and Irvine CHG. Estimation of endogenous luteinizing hormone-testosterone secretory coupling in three mammalian species. 27th Ann Meet Am Soc Androl, Seattle, Washington, April 24–27, 2002.
  43. Veldhuis JD, Straume M, Iranmanesh A, Mulligan T, Jaffe CA, Barkan A, Johnson ML, and Pincus SM. Secretory process regularity monitors neuroendocrine feedback and feed-forward signaling strength in humans. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 280: R721–R729, 2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Veldhuis JD, Urban RJ, Lizarralde G, Johnson ML, and Iranmanesh A. Attenuation of luteinizing hormone secretory burst amplitude is a proximate basis for the hypoandrogenism of healthy aging in men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 75: 52–58, 1992.[ISI]
  45. Veldhuis JD, Wilkowski MJ, Urban RJ, Lizarralde G, Iranmanesh A, and Bolton WK. Evidence for attenuation of hypothalamic GnRH impulse strength with preservation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) pulse frequency in men with chronic renal failure. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 76: 648–654, 1993.[Abstract]
  46. Wilson RC, Kesner JS, Kaufman JM, Uemura T, Akema T, and Knobil E. Central electrophysiologic correlates of pulsatile luteinizing hormone secretion in the Rhesus monkey. Neuroendocrinology 39: 256–260, 1984.[ISI][Medline]
  47. Wise PM, Krajnak KM, and Kashon ML. Menopause. The aging of multiple pacemakers. Science 273: 53–70, 1996.
  48. Witkin JW. Aging changes in synaptology of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone neurons in male rat preoptic area. Neuroscience 22: 1003–1013, 1987.[ISI][Medline]
  49. Xia L, van Vugt D, Alston EJ, Luckhaus J, and Ferin M. A surge of gonadotropin-releasing hormone accompanies the estradiol-induced gonadotropin surge in the rhesus monkey. Endocrinology 131: 2812–2820, 1992.[Abstract]




This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF)
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Citation Map
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Google Scholar
Articles by Keenan, D. M.
Articles by Veldhuis, J. D.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Keenan, D. M.
Articles by Veldhuis, J. D.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2003 by the American Physiological Society.