Responses of fetal rat bones to Solanum malacoxylon in vitro: A possible explanation of previous paradoxical results

Paula H Stern, E. M. Ness, H. F. DeLuca

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

A partially purified extract of Solanum malacoxylon was tested for its actions on fetal rat bone in vitro. The extract had a biphasic effect on bone resorption in vitro, stimulating at low concentrations (0.3-0.3 mg/ml) and inhibiting at concentrations of 1 mg/ml and higher. The stimulatory effect could be anatgonized with calcitonin or glucagon. At a concentration of 1.0 mg/ml, the S. malacoxylon extract anatagonized the bone-resorbing effect of 1α,25-dihydroxyvitmin D3[1,25-(OH)2D3] and parathyroid hormone. To determine whether effects in vitro could be due to 1,25-(OH)2D3 released into the medium during incubation, bones were cultured with equieffective concentrations of parathyroid hormone, 1,25-(OH)2D3 or S. malacoxylon, and the culture medium was extracted with organic solvents. Chloroform or benzene extracts from control or parathyroid hormone treated cultures were inactive, whereas those from 1,25-(OH)2D3-treated cultures retained most or all of the activity of the original media. Benzene extracts of S. malacoxylon culture, media inhibited resorption. The inhibitory material could be removed by high-pressure liquid chromatography, but the benzene extract was still ineffective. The results would be consistent with S. malacoxylon acting in vitro as the unhydrolyzed glycoside conjugate. However, it is also possible that the bone cells hydrolyze the glycoside to release small amounts of 1,25-(OH)2D3 which then interacts with the receptor.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)357-365
Number of pages9
JournalMolecular Pharmacology
Volume14
Issue number2
StatePublished - Jan 1 1978

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Responses of fetal rat bones to Solanum malacoxylon in vitro: A possible explanation of previous paradoxical results'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this