See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279752264

Somatotropin

Chapter · January 2010

DOI: 10.1081/E-EAS2-120019802

CITATIONS READS

0 809

2 authors, including:

Frank Rowland Dunshea

University of Melbourne
769 PUBLICATIONS   12,902 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Understand and reduce impacts of in utero heat stress in pigs View project

Implementation of machine learning and artificial intelligence to assess beer foamability and quality View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frank Rowland Dunshea on 06 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Bauman, Dale E.][Cornell University Library]
On: 20 January 2011
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 928599638]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Second Edition

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t929865724

Somatotropin
Dale E. Baumana; Frank R. Dunsheab
a
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. b Department of
Primary Industries, Werribee, Victoria, Australia

Online publication date: 19 November 2010

To cite this Chapter Bauman, Dale E. and Dunshea, Frank R.(2010) 'Somatotropin', Encyclopedia of Animal Science,
Second Edition, 1: 1, 995 — 998

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Somatotropin

Dale E. Bauman
Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.
Frank R. Dunshea
Department of Primary Industries, Werribee, Victoria, Australia

Abstract
Somatotropin is a protein hormone secreted from the anterior pituitary gland under the action of growth
hormone-releasing factor (stimulatory) and somatostatin (inhibitory) released from the hypothalamus. So-
matotropin can vary slightly in size, generally about 191 amino acids, and the amino acid sequence also var-
ies among species. Whereas bST and pST share a high degree of sequence similarity (ca. 90%), both have
Downloaded By: [Bauman, Dale E.][Cornell University Library] At: 14:34 20 January 2011

a much lower homology with human ST (ca. 65%) and hence are inactive in humans. Since ST is a protein,
it is digested if consumed orally, and exogenous ST has to be administered via injection or implant.

Introduction of amino acids to maximize response. Also, reductions in

In the 1920s, it was discovered that a crude pituitary extract
stimulated growth in rats, and this extract was referred to
as somatotropin or growth hormone, after the Greek deri-
vation meaning tissue growth.[1] Results were extended to
farm animals when somatotropin (ST) was shown to en-
hance growth rates in pigs[2] and stimulate milk produc-
tion in lactating goats[3] and cows.[4] However, the supply
of ST was extremely limited until the advent of recombi-
nant technology. In 1982, the first study with recombinant
ST in domestic animals was reported, in this case bovine
ST (bST) in lactating dairy cows.[5] Commercial use of
bST and porcine ST (pST) began in 1994 and 1996 in the
United States and Australia, respectively.
Efficacy of Exogenous Somatotropin
Growth
Somatotropin alters nutrient partitioning to improve growth
performance and body composition, and pST has been ap-
proved commercially in 14 countries.[6,7] Exogenous pST
results in dose-dependent increases in lean deposition and
reductions in fat (Fig. 1). It is effective in increasing pro-
tein deposition and decreasing fat deposition in all sexes
and genotypes. Although the greatest responses occur in
finisher pigs (60–120 kg), exogenous pST also improves
growth in younger pigs (30–60 kg). As a result of the
reduction in fat deposition, there is a corresponding reduc-
tion in feed intake.[8] Since pST stimulates protein deposi-
tion in all tissues, there are increases in visceral and skin
mass, and reductions in dressing percent. In general, lean
tissue responses in growing ruminants have been less than
in pigs, although much of these differences may relate to
the difficulty of ensuring an adequate balance and quantity
Encyclopedia of Animal Science, Second Edition DOI: 10.1081/E-EAS2-120019802
Copyright © 2011 by Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved.
fat deposition and feed intake appear less in young rumi-
nants compared to pigs.
There is little effect of pST on digestibility, so effects
are due to an increase in the efficiency of use of dietary pro-
tein and/or an increase in the requirement of dietary protein
to support the increased protein deposition. In grower pigs
(30–60 kg), pST has little or no effect on dietary protein re-
quirements, but there is an improvement in the efficiency of
amino acid use. In finisher pigs (60–120 kg), pST has little
effect on the efficiency of dietary protein use, but there is
an increase in protein requirement commensurate with the
increase in protein deposition.[6] As a consequence of the
increased protein mass and protein synthesis, there is also an
increase in maintenance requirement. That increase, when
combined with the reduced intake, means that dietary en-
ergy may often limit the response to pST. Protein deposition
in growing ruminants is virtually always limited by dietary
energy consumption, and this may explain why ruminants
treated with ST do not decrease feed intake, since energy
spared from the reduction in lipid synthesis is partitioned
toward protein deposition (or milk secretion in lactation, as
discussed subsequently). Therefore, if the full benefits of
exogenous ST are to be achieved, feed intake needs to be
maximized regardless of species or physiological state.[9]
Slaughter –
Lactation Turkeys
Exogenous ST has been shown to enhance lactational per-
formance in mammals ranging from laboratory animals to
humans. The most extensive work is with lactating cows,
and bST has been approved for commercial use in 19
countries.[10,11] Commercial use over the last decade has
clearly demonstrated a consistent milk response, generally
about 5 kg/day, and a marked improvement in productive
efficiency while maintaining normal cow health and herd
life.[11] There is generally little response to bST in early
995

120019802 995 Manila Typesetting Company 02/26/2010 12:34PM

 996
Fig. 1  Relationship between porcine somatotropin (pST) dose
and parameters of growth performance.
Source: From National Research Council.[9]
Downloaded By: [Bauman, Dale E.][Cornell University Library] At: 14:34 20 January 2011
lactation before peak yield, so commercial use is during
the declining phase of lactation (Fig. 2).
The composition of milk is unaltered by bST treatment.
Therefore, the use of bST has no impact on nutrient re-
quirements per unit of milk or the nutritional and manu-
facturing properties of milk.[9,10] Responses to bST have
been observed for all dairy breeds, regardless of parity and
genetic potential. Cows receiving bST increase intake in
an amount that matches nutrient needs for the extra milk
and allows for the normal replenishment of body reserves
over the lactation cycle. Thus, offering a balanced diet in
adequate amounts is important; if nutrition and manage-
ment are inadequate or poor, the lactational response to
bST will be attenuated or even abolished.[9,10,13]
Mechanisms
Fat and Carbohydrate
The multitude of effects that have been ascribed to ST in the
regulation of growth and lactation are outlined in Table 1.
Depending on physiological state, ST coordinates me-
tabolism to partition nutrients toward lean tissue and bone
during growth or toward milk synthesis during lactation.
Many effects of ST are direct and mediated through chang-
ing responses to homeostatic hormones such as insulin or
catecholamines. Other effects are indirect and thought to be
mediated by the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system.
Slaughter –
Basal lipogenesis in adipose tissue from growing pigs
Turkeys
treated with pST is decreased by up to 85%.[14] In addition,
the ability of insulin to stimulate lipogenesis and glucose
transport is similarly reduced in adipose tissue obtained
from ST-treated animals, and this is mainly due to a de-
creased sensitivity to insulin. Also, ST treatment reduces
rates of glucose clearance in response to an insulin or glu-
cose challenge, and there is an augmented plasma insulin
response to a glucose load. It has been suggested that the
insulin resistance and resultant reduced adipose tissue li-
pogenesis and glucose oxidation are largely responsible
120019802 996 Manila Typesetting Company
Somatotropin
for the reduction in feed intake observed in response to
pST treatment.[14]
Treatment with somatotropin also causes an increase
in lipolytic response to adrenergic stimulation in pigs and
cattle.[10,15] In animals that are in a positive energy bal-
ance, where fat synthesis in adipose tissue is high and fat
mobilization is low, effects of ST are predominantly a re-
duction in lipogenesis with little effect on lipolysis. On the
other hand, if animals are in negative energy balance or
need to draw on energy reserves, ST-treated animals have
an enhanced ability to mobilize fat. Thus, the overall effect
is that less nutrients are partitioned to body fat and more
nutrients are available for productive functions.
Protein
Although it is well established that ST increases protein
deposition and milk protein synthesis in growing and lac-
tating animals, respectively, the precise mechanisms and
extent to which effects on protein metabolism are direct
or indirect via IGF-I remains an active area of investiga-
tion. Most studies suggest that in growing animals, the in-
crease in protein deposition is due primarily to an increase
in protein synthesis, with little effect on protein degrada-
tion. The increase in protein synthesis is also associated
with a reduction in amino acid oxidation, so that a greater
proportion of absorbed amino acids is used for protein ac-
cretion.[6,15]
Mammary Gland
Treatment of lactating cows with ST results in an increased
synthesis of all milk constituents consistent with the in-
crease in milk yield. The mechanism involves both an
increase in the synthetic capacity and an improved mainte-
nance of mammary epithelial cells. Coordinated increases
Fig. 2  Effect of bovine somatotropin (bST) on milk yield in
lactating dairy cows. Commencing at week 0 (84 ± 10 days
postpartum) cows received a daily injection of excipient (dotted
line) or bST (27 mg/day; solid line) for 26 weeks.
Source: Adapted from Bauman et al.[12]
02/26/2010 12:34PM
 Somatotropin
Table 1  Biological and production effects of somatotropin in farm animals during growth and lactation.
Tissue
Skeletal muscle (growth)
Bone (growth)
Mammary tissue (lactation)
Adipose tissue
Downloaded By: [Bauman, Dale E.][Cornell University Library] At: 14:34 20 January 2011
Liver
Systemic effects
� = increase; ¯ = decrease; IGF-I = insulin-like growth factor I; IGFBP = insulin-like growth factor binding protein.
Source: Adapted from Bauman and Vernon,[10] and Etherton and Bauman.[15]
in mammary blood flow and mammary uptake of nutrients
also occur. The increased milk synthesis is supported by a
series of orchestrated changes in other body tissues to en-
sure that the mammary gland is supplied with the quantity
and pattern of nutrients to support milk synthesis.[10,11,13]
These coordinated adaptations involve most tissues in the
body, a portion of which is illustrated in Table 1.
Conclusions
Exogenous ST treatment of domestic animals markedly
improves production efficiency by increasing the amount
of lean meat or milk produced per unit of feed intake. As
a result, ST is used commercially in the dairy and swine
industries in many countries. The mechanisms involve co-
120019802 997
997
Physiological process affected
� Protein gain
� Protein synthesis
� Amino acid and glucose uptake
� Partial efficiency of amino acid utilization
� Mineral gain (paralleling tissue growth)
� Milk with normal composition
� Uptake of nutrients used for milk synthesis
� Maintenance and activity of secretory cells
� Blood flow consistent with milk yield
¯ Lipid gain
¯ Lipid synthesis
� Lipid mobilization (especially if in negative energy
balance)
� Catecholamine-stimulated lipolysis
¯ Insulin-stimulated lipid synthesis and glucose metabolism
¯ Ability of glucose to inhibit gluconeogenesis
� Glucose output (in lactation) to meet glucose needs
¯ Glucose output (in growth of pigs) to meet glucose needs
¯ Glucose clearance and oxidation
¯ Insulin sensitivity
¯ Amino acid oxidation and catabolism
� Plasma glucose, insulin, IGF-I, and IGFBP-3
¯ Plasma urea and IGFBP-2
ordinated changes in the physiological processes, and many
of these adaptations involve changes in tissue response to
homeostatic signals. Overall, these orchestrated adaptations
allow for a greater partitioning of nutrients for lean tissue
accretion (during growth) or milk synthesis (during lacta-
tion), thereby allowing for increases in performance and
Slaughter –
Turkeys
productive efficiency while preserving animal well-being.
References
1. Evans, H.M.; Simpson, M.E. Hormones of the anterior hy-
pophysis. Am. J. Physiol. 1931, 98, 511–546.
2. Giles, D.D. An experiment to determine the effect of the
growth hormone of the anterior lobe of the pituitary gland
on swine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 1942, 3, 77–85.
Manila Typesetting Company 02/26/2010 12:34PM
 998
3. Asdell, S.A. The effect of the injection of hypophyseal extract
in advanced lactation. Am. J. Physiol. 1932, 20, 137–140.
4. Asimov, G.J.; Krouze, N.K. The lactogenic preparations
from the anterior pituitary and the increase in milk yield
from cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1937, 20, 289–306.
5. Bauman, D.E.; DeGeeter, M.J.; Peel, C.J.; Lanza, G.M.;
Gorewit, R.C.; Hammond, R.W. Effect of recombinantly
derived bovine growth hormone (bGH) on lactational per-
formance of high yielding dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1982,
65 (Suppl. 1), 121.
6. Dunshea, F.R. Nutrient requirements of pigs treated with met-
abolic modifiers. Proc. Nutr. Soc. Austr. 1994, 18, 102–114.
7. Campbell, R.G.; Johnson, R.J.; Taverner, M.R.; King, R.H.
Interrelationships between exogenous porcine somatotropin
(PST) administration and dietary protein and energy intake
on protein deposition capacity and energy metabolism of
pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 69, 1522–1531.
Downloaded By: [Bauman, Dale E.][Cornell University Library] At: 14:34 20 January 2011
8. Boyd, R.D.; Bauman, D.E.; Fox, D.G.; Scanes, C.G. Impact
of metabolism modifiers on protein accretion and protein
and energy requirements of livestock. J. Anim. Sci. 1991,
69 (Suppl. 2), 56–75.
Slaughter –
Turkeys
120019802 998 Manila Typesetting Company
View publication stats
Somatotropin
9. National Research Council, Metabolic Modifiers: Effects on
the Nutrient Requirements of Food-Producing Animals;
National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1994.
10. Bauman, D.E.; Vernon, R.G. Effects of exogenous bovine
somatotropin on lactation. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 1993, 13, 437–
461.
11. Bauman, D.E. Bovine somatotropin and lactation: From
basic science to commercial application. Domest. Anim.
Endocrinol. 1999, 17, 101–116.
12. Bauman, D.E.; Eppard, P.J.; DeGeeter, M.J.; Lanza, G.M.
Responses of high-producing dairy cows to long-term treat-
ment with pituitary somatotropin and recombinant somato-
tropin. J. Dairy Sci. 1985, 68, 1352–1362.
13. Burton, J.L.; McBride, B.W.; Block, E.; Glimm, D.R.;
Kennelly, J.J. A review of bovine growth hormone. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 1994, 74, 167–201.
14. Dunshea, F.R. Effect of metabolism modifiers on lipid me-
tabolism in the pig. J. Anim. Sci. 1993, 71, 1966–1977.
15. Etherton, T.D.; Bauman, D.E. Biology of somatotropin in
growth and lactation of domestic animals. Physiol. Rev.
1998, 78, 745–761.
02/26/2010 12:34PM