Usage Information
Citation Information: J Clin Invest. 1987;80(1):242-247. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI113054.
Abstract
Placentas from streptozotocin-diabetic rats have previously been shown to be morphologically and biochemically immature when compared with those of control rats. The binding of epidermal growth factor (EGF) to plasma membranes prepared from placentas of control and streptozotocin-diabetic fetuses has been characterized on days 17 and 21 of gestation. Results from competitive binding data analyzed by Scatchard analysis indicate the presence of a single class of receptors on day 17 (KD = 5.4 X 10(-10)) and the appearance of a second class of binding sites for 125I-EGF by day 21 (Kd = 3.5 X 10(-9)) in membranes from control fetuses. Placental membranes from diabetic fetuses show decreased specific binding (approximately 30%) on both days and the absence of a second class of binding sites on day 21 of gestation. Results from a radioreceptor assay indicate that the quantity of EGF in the serum of fetuses removed from control rats on day 21 is twofold greater than the quantity in serum of fetuses from diabetic rats. These data reveal a developmental increase in EGF-binding sites in the placenta of normal, near-term fetal rats, largely because of the appearance of a second class of binding sites with a lower affinity for EGF. The failure (or delay) of this second class to develop in the diabetic may be important for the control of maturation and growth of this tissue.
Authors
J F Sissom, W K Stenzel, J B Warshaw
Usage data is cumulative from May 2024 through May 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 73 | 0 |
| 36 | 10 | |
| Scanned page | 187 | 2 |
| Citation downloads | 58 | 0 |
| Totals | 354 | 12 |
| Total Views | 366 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)