Research Comparison
HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin) vs HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin)
A side-by-side research comparison of HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin) and HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin) drawn from DRPSHP' peptide database records.
HCG (Human Chorionic Gonadotropin)
In early pregnancy hCG's job is to keep the corpus luteum producing progesterone, and it is made for that purpose mainly by the placenta's trophoblast cells. Structurally it is a glycoprotein hormone of two subunits held together without a covalent bond: a 92-residue alpha subunit shared with luteinising hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and thyroid-stimulating hormone, and a 145-residue beta subunit unique to hCG and closely related to LH's. Glycosylation is heavy and variable, with the consequence that preparations from different sources are not chemically identical to one another. The research literature covers receptor pharmacology, gonadal cell and animal models of steroid synthesis, and human endocrine studies.
HMG (Human Menopausal Gonadotropin)
After the menopause the ovaries stop answering the pituitary, feedback falls away, and the pituitary responds by secreting follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinising hormone at high levels. hMG is what you get by extracting those two hormones from the urine of women in that state. Both are heterodimers built on an alpha subunit shared with hCG and thyroid-stimulating hormone; the beta subunit is what differs between them and what decides which receptor each one reaches. Because this is an extract and not a defined molecule, the FSH-to-LH ratio, the glycoform mixture and the residual urinary protein content all differ from preparation to preparation, which is why no sequence, formula or molecular weight can be quoted for it. The published work sits in reproductive endocrinology, across cell, tissue and animal studies of gonadal function.
Reading a comparison
A comparison places two records side by side; it does not merge them. Each description above is drawn from that compound's own record, and the two were not necessarily characterised by the same methods, at the same time, or to the same level of detail. Before comparing any attribute, it is worth establishing that both records describe the substance you think they describe — names are not identifiers, and two entries sharing a name can differ in salt form, stereochemistry or the convention used to state a mass. Where a figure carries no method beside it, the comparison is between two reported numbers rather than between two measurements.