MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029407428 · doi:10.1071/rdv26n1ab209

209 EXPRESSION OF GENES RELATED TO OVULATORY CAPACITY (LHR AND AGTR2) IN GRANULOSA CELLS FROM SUPERSTIMULATED OR NOT SUPERSTIMULATED ANGUS COWS

2013· article· en· W2029407428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduardo Lucacin, Áurea Regina Teles Pupulim, Patrícia Kubo Fontes, E. M. Razza, Mariana Fernandes Machado, B. Loureiro, R. L. Ereno, A. C. S. Castilho, Rafael Augusto Satrapa, C. M. Barros

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiologyAndrologyAnimal scienceMedicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple ovulation and embryo transfer (MOET) has contributed to genetic improvement of Brazilian cattle and the P36 superstimulatory treatment protocol has been used successfully in MOET programs. Recently, increased mRNA levels of LH receptor (LHR) and angiotensin II receptor type 2 (AGTR2) have been reported in granulosa cells (GC) of superstimulated Nelore cows using P36 protocol and the efficacy of the P36 protocol has been investigated with the addition of a LH stimulus (eCG or LH), on the last day of treatment. We aimed to evaluate mRNA abundance of AGTR2 and LHR, related to ovulatory capacity, in GC of superstimulated Angus cows by different variations of the P36 protocol. Multiparous Angus cows (n = 37) were randomly assigned to four groups: control, P36, P36+eCG, and P36/FSH+LH. The control group (non-superstimulated cows, n = 7) received an intravaginal device containing progesterone (1.0 g; Primer®; Agener Animal Health, São Paulo, SP, Brazil) and 2.5 mg of oestradiol benzoate (EB; RIC-BE®; Agener Animal Health; IM) on a random day of the oestrous cycle (Day 0). After 8 days (Day 8) cows were treated with PGF2a (150 mg d-cloprostenol; Prolise®; Agener Animal Health; IM; 7:00 a.m.) and the intravaginal device was removed (7:00 p.m.). Cows from P36 group (n = 10) received the intravaginal device and 2.5 mg of EB at the beginning of the protocol (Day 0). Starting 5 days later (Day 5), 200 mg pFSH (Folltropin®; Bioniche Animal Health, Belleville, ON, Canada) was administered twice daily by IM injections over 4 days; on Day 7, PGF2a was administered and the intravaginal device was removed 36 h later (Day 8, 7:00 p.m.). Groups with the addition of a LH stimulus (eCG or LH administration) were submitted to the P36 protocol with replacement of the last two FSH doses by 200 IU eCG (P36+eCG; Novormon®, MSD Animal Health, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, IM; n = 10) or 2 mg pLH concomitant with the last two doses of FSH (P36/FSH+LH; Lutropin®, Bioniche Animal Health, IM; n = 10). Cows in all groups were slaughtered on Day 9, 12 h after progesterone-device removal and ovaries were transported on ice to the laboratory immediately after slaughter. Non-superstimulated dominant follicles and superstimulated follicles were dissected from the ovaries to obtain GC and total RNA was extracted. Amplification of housekeeping (peptidyl-prolyl isomerase A; PPIA) and target genes was performed by real-time RT–PCR according to the Sybr Green protocol. Relative gene expression was determined by Pfaffl's equation. The mRNA abundance was compared by Tukey's test and the significance level was P < 0.05. In GC, the mRNA abundance (mean ± s.e.m.) of LHR and AGTR2 was higher in the control group (1.02 ± 0.24 and 3.76 ± 1.07, respectively; P < 0.05) when compared with the superstimulated groups: P36 (0.33 ± 0.24 and 1.02 ± 0.21), P36+eCG (0.42 ± 0.10 and 1.40 ± 0.33) and P36/FSH+LH (0.38 ± 0.07 and 1.45 ± 0.49). In conclusion, the superstimulatory treatments decrease mRNA levels of LHR and AGTR2. We acknowledge CAPES for E. Lucacin's scholarship and FAPESP–São Paulo Research Foundation for grant number 2011/50593-2.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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