Progesterone Impairs B Cells, Antibodies

[lvysaur]

In B cells, the effects of P4 treatment are less well characterized. In vitro studies with B cells and endometrial cell co-cultures from mice show that in the presence of P4, B cells have reduced expression of CD80 and CD86 and a limited ability to present antigen.55 B-cell hybridomas treated with P4 show lower cellular proliferation and antibody production.56 In murine splenic B cells, P4 treatment decreases activation-induced deaminase mRNA and the ability of these cells to undergo somatic hypermutation and class-switch recombination.57 Acute administration of P4 in combination with low dose estradiol to female mice significantly reduces B lymphopoiesis, suggesting that these hormones are negative regulators of B-cell development in bone marrow.58 During pulmonary infection, females treated with time-release capsules of either P4 and LNG exhibit lower antibody production systemically in serum and locally in brochoalveolar lavage fluid, than do non-hormone treated female mice.59 Taken together, these data illustrate that P4 and related compounds alter the functioning of immune cells, which could have profound effects on the pathogenesis of diseases at mucosal sites.

Multiple anti-B cell and reduced antibody effects of progesterone.

Progesterone-based compounds affect immune responses and susceptibility to infections at diverse mucosal sites | Mucosal Immunology

 

[Gone Peating]

It could be that they make it unnecessary for the body to produce them as progesterone can do their job

 

[jb116]

Come on now, this is just too easy. They're talking about progestins. May as well toss the study away.

 

[lvysaur]

Come on now, this is just too easy. They're talking about progestins. May as well toss the study away.

The text says Progesterone as well as synthetic progestins. "P4" is their abbreviation for actual progesterone.

 

[jb116]

The text says Progesterone as well as synthetic progestins. "P4" is their abbreviation for actual progesterone.

Yes they do that often. The focal substance of the study will be some analogous or supposed analogous substance of the true substance and they'll use the terms interchangeably.

 

[mrchibbs]

Yes they do that often. The focal substance of the study will be some analogous or supposed analogous substance of the true substance and they'll use the terms interchangeably.

I can back this up. I've seen this regularly, even (or should I say especially) in major medical journals (like the NEJM or the Lancet). They'll report some negative effects of progesterone and when you look at the details it's not progesterone but some random progestin. Completely untrustworthy.

 

[jb116]

I can back this up. I've seen this regularly, even (or should I say especially) in major medical journals (like the NEJM or the Lancet). They'll report some negative effects of progesterone and when you look at the details it's not progesterone but some random progestin. Completely untrustworthy.

Thanks, exactly what I mean.

This study is riddled with this convention but also a couple of other things that should make it untrustworthy.

P4, according to them, seems to be actually estrogen and progesterone:
"...circulating concentrations of estrogens and progesterone (P4)..."
They are also flip-flopping on how they intend to use P4 as it relates to progesterone. Where they write: "Natural P4 is produced by the corpus luteum..."
Why suddenly use a qualifier like "natural" where essentially everywhere else through this study they ambiguously say simply "P4" (or with estrogen mixed in as we saw above)? Even if they intended to only apply "P4" to the progesterone portion, it was written in a very sloppy and irresponsible way. But obfuscation is part of the game here; confusion from the get-go.

Shortly thereafter, this sentence follows:
"With older age, concentrations of estrogens and progestins decline rapidly in females and concentrations of androgens decline gradually in males."
WHAT? Confusion is one thing, mixing terms is another, but that is just so absurd one would have to think they really have no idea what they're saying overall or again, this is just deliberate muddling. And the argument that "progestin" was sporadically used to indicate progesterone doesn't work as that was only common a long time ago before the 1930s before the production of synthetic versions.

Finally, within their diarrhea soup of words however, you can weed out their objective and goal reinforcing for us that this was indeed about progestin and not real progesterone:
"Bringing together diverse bodies of literature, we seek to illustrate that progestins affect immune responses to microbes at diverse mucosal sites. Because women are exposed to both natural and synthetic forms of P4 throughout their lifetime, we will use this hormone to make the broader point that the hormonal milieu can drastically alter the outcome of infectious diseases at mucosal sites. Whether the immunomodulatory effects of P4-based compounds confer protection or increase susceptibility to infectious diseases can be cell- and site-specific, which will be addressed. Although pregnancy and the associated hormonal changes, including the rise in P4, can have profound effects on immune responses and the outcome of infectious diseases at diverse sites, this goes beyond the goals of this review and are discussed in detail elsewhere"

The funny thing is one of the referenced studies admit how "progestin" is misused consistently, and instead use a bit more transparency when it comes to labeling and using the word progesterone. They said: "The term “progestin,” which is not used in a consistent manner in the scientific literature, will refer here to synthetic progestagens..."
At least they made some attempt to be clear about the terms.