Gestrinone (R 2323)
(Synonyms: 孕三烯酮; R 2323) 目录号 : GC31746
An androgen and progesterone receptor ligand used to treat endometriosis
Cas No.:16320-04-0
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >99.50%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
Cell experiment: | Gestrinone is dissolved in DMSO and diluted in cell culture media. The final concentration of DMSO in the culture media is 0.5%. The cells are cultured in 96-well plates and treated with DMSO or graded concentrations of gestrinone (0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10, 50 or 100 μM) for 20, 40 and 60 h. The absorbance (OD) at 450 nm is read to determine the cell viability in each well[2]. |
References: [1]. Tamaya T, et al. Gestrinone (R2323) binding to steroid receptors in human uterine endometrial cytosol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1986;65(5):439-41. | |
Endometriosis is common disease characterized by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus which affects approximately 10% of premenopausal women. Gestrinone is a synthetic steroid used occasionally to treat endometriosis.1 It acts centrally on the hypothalamic-
1.Moghissi, K.S.Medical treatment of endometriosisClin. Obstet. Gynecol.45(3)620-633(1999) 2.Tamaya, T., Fujimoto, J., Watanabe, Y., et al.Gestrinone (R2323) binding to steroid receptors in human uterine endometrial cytosolActa Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.65(5)439-441(1986) 3.Death, A.K., mcGrath, K.C.Y., Kazluskas, R., et al.Tetrahydrogestrinone is a potent androgen and progestinJ. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.89(5)2498-2500(2004)
| Cas No. | 16320-04-0 | SDF | |
| 别名 | 孕三烯酮; R 2323 | ||
| Canonical SMILES | C#C[C@]1(O)CC[C@@]2([H])[C@]3([H])CCC4=CC(CCC4=C3C=C[C@]12CC)=O | ||
| 分子式 | C21H24O2 | 分子量 | 308.41 |
| 溶解度 | DMSO : ≥ 50 mg/mL (162.12 mM) | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 3.2424 mL | 16.2122 mL | 32.4244 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.6485 mL | 3.2424 mL | 6.4849 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.3242 mL | 1.6212 mL | 3.2424 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Endometriosis: an overview of Cochrane Reviews
Background: This overview reports on interventions for pain relief and for subfertility in pre-menopausal women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis. Objectives: The objective of this overview was to summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on treatment options for women with pain or subfertility associated with endometriosis. Methods: Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting pain or fertility outcomes in women with clinically diagnosed endometriosis were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation (protocols and titles) for future inclusion. The reviews, protocols and titles were identified by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in March 2014.Pain-related outcomes of the overview were pain relief, clinical improvement or resolution and pain recurrence. Fertility-related outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and adverse events.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using GRADE methods. Review findings were summarised in the text and the data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'. Main results: Seventeen systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All the reviews were high quality. The quality of the evidence for specific comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary studies, inconsistency between the studies, and imprecision in effect estimates. Pain relief (14 reviews) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues One systematic review reported low quality evidence of an overall benefit for GnRH analogues compared with placebo or no treatment. Ovulation suppression Five systematic reviews reported on medical treatment using ovulation suppression. There was moderate quality evidence that the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) was more effective than expectant management, and very low quality evidence that danazol was more effective than placebo. There was no consistent evidence of a difference in effectiveness between oral contraceptives and goserelin, estrogen plus progestogen and placebo, or progestogens and placebo, though in all cases the relevant evidence was of low or very low quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)A review of NSAIDs reported inconclusive evidence of a benefit in symptom relief compared with placebo. Surgical interventions There were two reviews of surgical interventions. One reported moderate quality evidence of a benefit in pain relief following laparoscopic surgery compared to diagnostic laparoscopy only. The other reported very low quality evidence that recurrence rates of endometriomata were lower after excisional surgery than after ablative surgery. Post-surgical medical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. Neither found evidence of an effect on pain outcomes, though in both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine There were two systematic reviews of alternative medicine. One reported evidence of a benefit from auricular acupuncture compared to Chinese herbal medicine, and the other reported no evidence of a difference between Chinese herbal medicine and danazol. In both cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Anti-TNF-α drugs One review found no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between anti-TNF-α drugs and placebo. However, the evidence was of low quality. Reviews reporting fertility outcomes (8 reviews) Medical interventions Four reviews reported on medical interventions for improving fertility in women with endometriosis. One compared three months of GnRH agonists with a control in women undergoing assisted reproduction and found very low quality evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancies in the treatment group. There was no evidence of a difference in effectiveness between the interventions in the other three reviews, which compared GnRH agonists versus antagonists, ovulation suppression versus placebo or no treatment, and pre-surgical medical therapy versus surgery alone. In all cases the evidence was of low or very low quality. Surgical interventions Three reviews reported on surgical interventions. There was moderate quality evidence that both live births or ongoing pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were higher after laparoscopic surgery than after diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was low quality evidence of no difference in effectiveness between surgery and expectant management for endometrioma. One review found low quality evidence that excisional surgery resulted in higher clinical pregnancy rates than drainage or ablation of endometriomata. Post-surgical interventions Two reviews reported on post-surgical medical interventions. They found no evidence of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates. The evidence was of low or very low quality. Alternative medicine A review of Chinese herbal medicine in comparison with gestrinone found no evidence of a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates. However, the evidence was of low quality. Adverse events Reviews of GnRH analogues and of danazol reported that the interventions were associated with higher rates of adverse effects than placebo; and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates of adverse events than other treatments. Chinese herbal medicine was associated with fewer side effects than gestrinone or danazol.Three reviews reported miscarriage as an outcome. No difference was found between surgical and diagnostic laparoscopy, between GnRH agonists and antagonists, or between aspiration of endometrioma and expectant management. However, in all cases the quality of the evidence was of low quality. Authors' conclusions: For women with pain and endometriosis, suppression of menstrual cycles with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUD) and danazol were beneficial interventions. Laparoscopic treatment of endometriosis and excision of endometriomata were also associated with improvements in pain. The evidence on NSAIDs was inconclusive. There was no evidence of benefit with post-surgical medical treatment.In women with endometriosis undergoing assisted reproduction, three months of treatment with GnRH agonist improved pregnancy rates. Excisional surgery improved spontaneous pregnancy rates in the nine to 12 months after surgery compared to ablative surgery. Laparoscopic surgery improved live birth and pregnancy rates compared to diagnostic laparoscopy alone. There was no evidence that medical treatment improved clinical pregnancy rates.Evidence on harms was scanty, but GnRH analogues, danazol and depot progestagens were associated with higher rates than other interventions.
Progesterone receptor modulators for endometriosis
Background: Endometriosis is defined as the presence of endometrial tissue (glands and stroma) outside the uterine cavity. This condition is oestrogen-dependent and thus is seen primarily during the reproductive years. Owing to their antiproliferative effects in the endometrium, progesterone receptor modulators (PRMs) have been advocated for treatment of endometriosis.
Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of PRMs primarily in terms of pain relief as compared with other treatments or placebo or no treatment in women of reproductive age with endometriosis.
Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers, and websites: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the Central Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) platform, from inception to 28 November 2016. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved by the search.
Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined effects of PRMs for treatment of symptomatic endometriosis.
Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. Primary outcomes included measures of pain and side effects.
Main results: We included 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 960 women. Two RCTs compared mifepristone versus placebo or versus a different dose of mifepristone, one RCT compared asoprisnil versus placebo, one compared ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate, and four compared gestrinone versus danazol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, or a different dose of gestrinone. The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. The main limitations were serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods and high or unclear rates of attrition in most studies), very serious imprecision (associated with low event rates and wide confidence intervals), and indirectness (outcome assessed in a select subgroup of participants). Mifepristone versus placebo One study made this comparison and reported rates of painful symptoms among women who reported symptoms at baseline.At three months, the mifepristone group had lower rates of dysmenorrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.17; one RCT, n =352; moderate-quality evidence), suggesting that if 40% of women taking placebo experience dysmenorrhoea, then between 3% and 10% of women taking mifepristone will do so. The mifepristone group also had lower rates of dyspareunia (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.51; one RCT, n = 223; low-quality evidence). However, the mifepristone group had higher rates of side effects: Nearly 90% had amenorrhoea and 24% had hot flushes, although the placebo group reported only one event of each (1%) (high-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences in rates of nausea, vomiting, or fatigue, if present. Mifepristone dose comparisons Two studies compared doses of mifepristone and found insufficient evidence to show differences between different doses in terms of effectiveness or safety, if present. However, subgroup analysis of comparisons between mifepristone and placebo suggest that the 2.5 mg dose may be less effective than 5 mg or 10 mg for treating dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia. Gestrinone comparisons Ons study compared gestrinone with danazol, and another study compared gestrinone with leuprolin.Evidence was insufficient to show differences, if present, between gestrinone and danazol in rate of pain relief (those reporting no or mild pelvic pain) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.56; two RCTs, n = 230; very low-quality evidence), dysmenorrhoea (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.33; two RCTs, n = 214; very low-quality evidence), or dyspareunia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.86; two RCTs, n = 222; very low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had a higher rate of hirsutism (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.60 to 4.32; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) and a lower rate of decreased breast size (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.98; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups, if present, in rate of hot flushes (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.26; two RCTs, n = 302; very low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.33; two RCTs, n = 302; low-quality evidence).When researchers compared gestrinone versus leuprolin through measurements on the 1 to 3 verbal rating scale (lower score denotes benefit), the mean dysmenorrhoea score was higher in the gestrinone group (MD 0.35 points, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58; one RCT, n = 55; low-quality evidence), but the mean dyspareunia score was lower in this group (MD 0.33 points, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.04; low-quality evidence). The gestrinone group had lower rates of amenorrhoea (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence) and hot flushes (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; one study, n = 55; low quality evidence) but higher rates of spotting or bleeding (OR 22.92, 95% CI 2.64 to 198.66; one RCT, n = 49; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show differences in effectiveness or safety between different doses of gestrinone, if present. Asoprisnil versus placebo One study (n = 130) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis. Ulipristal versus leuprolide acetate One study (n = 38) made this comparison but did not report data suitable for analysis.
Authors' conclusions: Among women with endometriosis, moderate-quality evidence shows that mifepristone relieves dysmenorrhoea, and low-quality evidence suggests that this agent relieves dyspareunia, although amenorrhoea and hot flushes are common side effects. Data on dosage were inconclusive, although they suggest that the 2.5 mg dose of mifepristone may be less effective than higher doses. We found insufficient evidence to permit firm conclusions about the safety and effectiveness of other progesterone receptor modulators.
Dydrogesterone in the treatment of endometriosis: evidence mapping and meta-analysis
Purpose: Endometriosis is a common, chronic gynecological disease that affects women's fertility potential. Dydrogesterone is an effective and safe drug that is under-utilized due to limited clinical research. The purpose of this evidence mapping is to identify, describe, and analyze the current available evidence regarding dydrogesterone for the treatment of endometriosis.
Materials and methods: We performed a search in electronic databases: Medline, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM. We also hand-searched google for relevant studies. Our primary outcomes included changes in pain relief including pelvic pain, dysmenorrhea, and dyspareunia. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy rate, frequency of analgesic use, and other reported outcomes according to specific settings in the studies.
Results: Of 377 references screened, 19 studies were included in the data synthesis involving 1709 female participants. Nearly three-quarters were either randomized control trials or clinical control trials. Compared with gestrinone, dydrogesterone relieved dysmenorrhea, increased the pregnancy rate, and reduced the risk of certain adverse events. Compared with GnRH-a, dydrogesterone also lowered the risk of endometriosis recurrence and elevated transaminase levels. Whether there was any difference in efficacy between dydrogesterone and leuprolide acetate, letrozole or traditional Chinese medicine remains unclear due to insufficient data.
Conclusions: The amount and quality of evidence evaluating the effects of dydrogesterone for the treatment of endometriosis is generally very low. Limited evidence suggests that dydrogesterone may have some advantages over gestrinone, GnRH agonists, and other therapeutic interventions in treating endometriosis. However, this conclusion should be interpreted with caution.
Treatment of endometriosis with gestrinone (R-2323), a synthetic antiestrogen, antiprogesterone
Twenty patients with endometriosis diagnosed by laparoscopy were treated with the antiestrogen, antiprogesterone gestrinone (R-2323) for 6 to 8 months. The drug was administered in a dose of 5 mg twice weekly. According to the American Fertility Society's classification of endometriosis, five patients were classified as having mild (Stage I), eight as having moderate (Stage II), and seven as having severe endometriosis (Stage III). All patients became amenorrheic at the end of the second month of treatment, and symptomless at the end of the third month. Of nine women who had the potential and the desire to conceive, three conceived within 3 months after termination of treatment. Two more became pregnant within 1 year, and another, 14 months after termination of treatment. Five pregnancies progressed to term. One patient aborted. Two of the three women who did not conceive had subfertile husbands. Major side effects recorded were seborrhea and acne, which subsided after discontinuation of therapy. Treatment of endometriosis with gestrinone offers the advantage of effective clearing of lesions with relatively low dosage and frees the patient from the daily administration of drugs required by similar conservative hormonal therapies.
Repurposing gestrinone for tumor suppressor through P21 reduction regulated by JNK in gynecological cancer
Endometriosis has been shown to increase the risk of gynecological cancers. However, the effect of gestrinone, a clinical endometriosis drug, on gynecological cancers remains unclear. This study aimed to understand the effect of gestrinone on gynecological cancers. A retrospective study was conducted using the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database 2000 of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) to observe the risk of gynecological cancers. Medication records from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital CSMUH and cancer records from the Taiwan Cancer Registry were collected to analyze the correlation between gestrinone use and gynecological cancers. Subsequently, human cell lines were used to investigate the effect of gestrinone on gynecological cancers. A total of 8330 endometriosis patients were enrolled, and analyses revealed that endometriosis patients had a higher risk of developing ovarian and endometrial cancer. However, the rate of cervical cancer was not statistically different (P = 0.249). Analyses of both the NHIRD and CSMUH databases revealed that gestrinone may reduce the risk of gynecological cancer. Cellular experiments verified the anticancer effects of gestrinone, which effectively and specifically inhibited the growth of HeLa cervical cancer cells, decreased P21 expression via JNK phosphorylation, and induced apoptosis. Combining the results of clinical database analysis and cell experiments, our findings prove that gestrinone has the potential to protect against cancer through regulation of the JNK-P21 axis. Repurposing the anticancer efficacy of gestrinone may be a strategy for targeted therapy in the future.