The secretion of glucocorticoids (GCs) is a classic endocrine response to stress. Despite that, it remains controversial as to what purpose GCs serve at such times. One view, stretching back to the time of Hans Selye, posits that GCs help mediate the ongoing or pending stress response, either via basal levels of GCs permitting other facets of the stress response to emerge efficaciously, and/or by stress levels of GCs actively stimulating the stress response. In contrast, a revisionist viewpoint posits that GCs suppress the stress response, preventing it from being pathologically overactivated. In this review, we consider recent findings regarding GC action and, based on them, generate criteria for determining whether a particular GC action permits, stimulates, or suppresses an ongoing stress-response or, as an additional category, is preparative for a subsequent stressor. We apply these GC actions to the realms of cardiovascular function, fluid volume and hemorrhage, immunity and inflammation, metabolism, neurobiology, and reproductive physiology. We find that GC actions fall into markedly different categories, depending on the physiological endpoint in question, with evidence for mediating effects in some cases, and suppressive or preparative in others. We then attempt to assimilate these heterogeneous GC actions into a physiological whole.

Almost any kind of threat to homeostasis or stress will cause plasma glucocorticoid levels to rise. The increased levels have traditionally been ascribed the physiological function of enhancing the organism's resistance to stress, a role well recognized in glucocorticoid therapy. How the known physiological and pharmacological effects of glucocorticoids might accomplish this function, however, remains a mystery. A generalization that is beginning to emerge is that many of these effects may be secondary to modulation by glucocorticoids of the actions of numerous intercellular mediators, including established hormones, prostaglandins and other arachidonic acid metabolites, certain secreted neutral proteinases, lymphokines, and a variety of bioactive peptides. These mediators participate in physiological mechanisms--endocrine, renal, immune, neural, etc.--that mount a first line of defense against such challenges to homeostasis as hemorrhage, metabolic disturbances, infection, anxiety, and others. Contrary to the traditional view that glucocorticoids enhance these defense mechanisms, however, it has become increasingly clear that glucocorticoids at moderate to high levels generally suppress them. This paradox, which first emerged when glucocorticoids were discovered to be antiinflammatory agents, remains a major obstacle to a unified picture of glucocorticoid function. We propose that stress-induced increases in glucocorticoid levels protect not against the source of stress itself but rather against the body's normal reactions to stress, preventing those reactions from overshooting and themselves threatening homeostasis. This hypothesis, the seeds of which are to be found in many discussions of particular glucocorticoid effects, immediately accounts for the paradox noted above. Furthermore, it provides glucocorticoid physiology with a unified conceptual framework that can accommodate such apparently unrelated physiological and pharmacological effects as those on carbohydrate metabolism, inflammatory processes, shock, and water balance. It also leads us to suggest that some of the enzymes rapidly induced by glucocorticoids, such as glutamine synthetase, detoxify mediators released during stress-induced activation of primary defense mechanisms. These mediators would themselves lead to tissue damage if left unchecked.

To examine directly the hypothesis that T cell growth factor (TCGF) interacts with target cells in a fashion similar to polypeptide hormones, the binding of radiolabeled TCGF to various cell populations was investigated. The results indicate that TCGF interacts with activated T cells via a receptor through which it initiates the T cell proliferative response. Internally radiolabeled TCGF, prepared from a human T leukemia cell line and purified by gel filtration and isoelectric focusing, retained biological activity and was uniform with respect to size and charge. Binding of radiolabeled TCGF to TCGF-dependent cytolytic T cells occurred rapidly (within 15 rain at 37 degrees C) and was both saturable and largely reversible. In addition, at 37 degrees C, a receptor- and lysosome-dependent degradation of TCGF occurred. Radiolabeled TCGF binding was specific for activated, TCGF-responsive T cells. Whereas unstimulated lymphocytes of human or murine origin and lipopolysaccharide-activated B cell blasts expressed few if any detectable binding sites, lectin- or alloantigen-activated cells had easily detectable binding sites. Moreover, compared with lectin- or alloantigen-activated T cells, long-term TCGF-dependent cytolytic and helper T cell lines and TCGF-dependent neo-plastic T cell lines bound TCGF with a similar affinity (dissociation constant of 5-25 pM) and expressed a similar number of receptor sites per cell (5,000-15,000). In contrast, a number of TCGF-independent cell lines of T cell, B cell, or myeloid origin did not bind detectable quantities of radiolabeled TCGF. Binding of radiolabeled TCGF to TCGF-responsive cells was specific, in that among several growth factors and polypeptide hormones tested, only TCGF competed for binding. Finally, the relative magnitude of T cell proliferation induced by a given concentration of TCGF closely paralleled the fraction of occupied receptor sites. As the extent of T cell clonal expansion depends on TCGF and on the TCGF receptor, the dissection of the molecular events surrounding the interaction of TCGF and its receptor that these studies permit, should provide new insight into the hormonelike regulation of the immune response by this lymphokine.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract