This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hwang, D. L. Articles by Lev-Ran, A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hwang, D. L. Articles by Lev-Ran, A.

Insulin and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptors in Rat Liver after Administration of the Hepatocarcinogen 2-Acetylaminofluorene: Ligand Binding and Autophosphorylation¹

Departments of Endocrinology [D. L. H., A. R., G. B., A. L-R.] and of Medical Oncology [B. I. C.], City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California 91010

The livers of male F344 rats which were fed 0.02% 2-acetylaminofluorene (2-AAF) for two days or more had decreased binding of insulin and epidermal growth factor (EGF) to their hepatic receptors in microsomal and Golgi fractions. Hepatic receptors which were partially purified from carcinogen-fed rats by Triton X-100 solubilization and wheat germ agglutinin affinity column chromatography also had decreased binding activity compared to receptors from normal rats. Scatchard analysis indicated that the decrease in insulin receptor binding was due to decreased receptor number whereas the change in EGF receptor binding was attributed to decreased receptor affinity. Insulin receptor phosphokinase activity was also decreased in 2-AAF-fed rats and correlated with the decrease in receptor binding. EGF receptor phosphokinase activity was unchanged in 2-AAF-fed rats when stimulated with a high concentration (1 µM) of EGF but was decreased when stimulated with low concentrations (0.01–0.1 µM) of EGF. No EGF or insulin competing activity for receptor binding was found using acid-ethanol extracts of 2-AAF-altered liver. These results suggest that 2-AAF causes different alterations in the insulin and EGF receptors of the rat liver.

¹ This work was made possible in part by support from the Joe Bishop research fund.

² To whom requests for reprints should be addressed.

Received 2/ 8/85. Revised 7/11/85. Revised 12/ 3/85. Accepted 12/11/85.