MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974723510 · doi:10.1071/rdv27n1ab171

171 EXPRESSION OF THE OVULATION-INDUCING FACTOR/NERVE GROWTH FACTOR HIGH AFFINITY RECEPTOR IN THE OVARIES OF COWS DURING THE PERIOVULATORY PERIOD

2014· article· en· W1974723510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rodrigo A. Carrasco, Jaswant Singh, Gregory P. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationCorpus luteumInternal medicineEndocrinologyFollicular phaseOvaryFollicleProstaglandinEstrous cycleNerve growth factorBiologyOvariectomized ratOvarian follicleReceptorMedicineEstrogenHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ovulation-inducing factor/nerve growth factor (OIF/NGF) influences ovulation and corpus luteum (CL) size and function in camelids and, remarkably, cows. The ovulation effect in induced ovulators is mediated at the hypothalamo-pituitary-axis, but the site and mechanism of action of the luteotrophic effect is unknown. This mechanism may be an important aspect of OIF/NGF in spontaneous-ovulators. The objective of this experiment was to detect changes in expression of the high affinity OIF/NGF receptor (TrkA) in the ovary during the periovulatory period in cattle. Cows (n = 14) were examined daily by transrectal ultrasonography to determine the day of ovulation (Day 0), and were assigned randomly to be unilaterally ovariectomized on Day 2, 4, 6, or in the preovulatory period before or after the LH surge. Cows assigned to preovulatory groups were given a luteolytic dose of prostaglandin when the dominant follicle of the second follicular wave was =10 mm and growing. Cows assigned to the pre-LH group were ovariectomized 24 h after prostaglandin treatment. Cows assigned to the post-LH group were given LH 24 h after prostaglandin treatment and were ovariectomized 18–20 h later. Cows were allowed to rest for one complete interovulatory interval and re-assigned to a different day-group on which the remaining ovary was removed (n = 4 to 5 ovaries/day-group). Ovaries were fixed in paraformaldehyde, and 5-µm sections of ovarian tissue representing the dominant follicle, largest subordinate follicle, and the CL were treated for enzymatic antigen retrieval and blocked in 1% BSA for 1 h. Slides were incubated overnight with the primary antibody (rabbit anti-human TrkA) and for 2 h with the secondary antibody (goat anti-rabbit IgG). Slides were evaluated by fluorescence microscopy. Images of 3 arbitrarily chosen fields (40×) were captured for each structure for each day-group, and the average proportion of immunoreactive cells in the theca layer and luteal tissue was estimated using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). The intensity of individual cell immunofluorescence was also scored as no reaction (0), faint (1), weak to moderate (2), or strong (3). Data were compared among groups by two-way ANOVA. The proportion of immunoreactive cells was higher in the dominant follicle than in the subordinate follicle or the CL (P < 0.001); no effect of day-group or interaction was detected. The intensity score increased from faint on Day 2 to strong on Day 6, and remained strong in the pre- and post-LH groups. A discernible pattern of change in intensity score was not evident for the subordinate follicle or the CL. The greater proportion of TrkA positive cells and greater immunoreactive intensity in the maturing dominant follicle support the hypothesis that the luteotrophic effect of OIF/NGF in cattle is a result of a local increase in the expression of TrkA in the theca layer of the dominant follicle. Research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207