MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012101903 · doi:10.1071/rdv21n1ab153

153 THE EFFECT OF CONTINUOUS EXOGENOUS GONADOTROPIN TREATMENT ON OVARIAN ACTIVITY IN TIGERS (PANTHERA TIGRIS SPP.)

2008· article· en· W2012101903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
B. A. Blevins, D. L. Armstrong, N.M. Loskutoff

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationEstrous cycleBiologyArtificial inseminationLuteal phaseEndocrinologyInseminationAgonistInternal medicineGonadotropin-releasing hormoneAndrologyFollicular phaseAnimal scienceLuteinizing hormoneHormoneSpermPregnancyMedicineReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tigers are seasonally polyestrus, induced ovulators and can show breeding behavior for 7 days or more. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal time to trigger ovulation to induce a normal luteal phase. Previously, naturally cycling tigresses (n = 5) were observed for estrus and treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist. It appeared from ovarian laparoscopic examinations, fecal estrogen, and progesterone measurements, that Day 4 of estrus was optimal for timing the ovulation trigger. One of the tigresses had three 10 to 12 mm follicles and three ovulation sites on her ovaries and produced a live cub after intra-uterine laparoscopic artificial insemination using fresh semen. To control the cycle and further pinpoint the timing for ovulation, a study was conducted on three tigresses using purified pFSH, previously shown to be effective in tigers (Crichton et al. 2003 Biol. Reprod. 68, 105–113) delivered in an implantable osmotic pump (Alzet, Palo Alto, CA, USA) and GnRH agonist delivered on Day 4 of estrus. None of the females ovulated as determined by fecal progesterone measurements, which is consistent with previous anecdotal reports that GnRH agonists are effective in natural cycles but not in stimulated cycles in felids. To overcome this problem, a study was conducted on 6 tigresses (n = 11 cycles) using 210 mg pFSH (Folltropin-V, Bioniche, Belleville, ON, Canada) delivered at 1.25 U pFSH/h and the tigresses were treated on Day 4 of estrus (7 days after pFSH implantation) with 50 µg GnRH agonist (Cystorelin, Merial, Victoriaville, QC, Canada) in addition to 10 000 IU of hCG (Profasi, Serono, Rockland, MA, USA), the latter previously shown to be effective in felids (Donoghue et al. 1993 J. Zoo Wild. Med. 24, 185–189). Fecal samples were collected and analyzed for estradiol and progesterone and ovarian responses were examined laparoscopically. Results were compared using Student’s t-tests. Discrepancies in reported sample numbers were due to limited sample availability. Concentrations of fecal estradiol were similar (P > 0.05) between females treated with pFSH and natural cycles (172.5 ± 14.9 ng g–1, n = 8 v. 204.8 ± 4.1 ng g–1, n = 4; respectively). Females responded to hormonal stimulation with a significant increase (P < 0.05) in the number of large follicles (>9 mm) to CL stages compared to naturally cycling females (11.8 ± 1.9, n = 11 v. 4.0 ± 0.1, n = 5; respectively). There was no difference (P > 0.05) in the average duration of the luteal phase between stimulated and natural cycles (32.9 ± 0.1d, n = 7 v. 33.3 ± 1.4d, n = 3; respectively). Luteal phase progesterone concentrations were significantly higher (P < 0.05) after GnRH and hCG treatments than in naturally ovulating tigresses (6.3 ± 1.0 µg g–1, n = 10 v. 2.8 ± 0.6 µg g–1, n = 4; respectively). In summary, while follicular development was increased, exogenous hormone administration resulted in fecal estradiol concentrations and luteal phase duration similar to that of naturally cycling tigresses. Nevertheless, progesterone concentrations were significantly higher and follicular phase duration tended to be longer in the stimulated cycles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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