MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054185934 · doi:10.1071/rdv22n1ab225

225 FOLLICULAR DIAMETER, OVULATION RATE, AND LH RECEPTOR GENE EXPRESSION IN NELLORE COWS

2009· article· en· W2054185934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. A. L. Simões, Rafael Augusto Satrapa, F. S. Rosa, M. Piagentini, A. C. S. Castilho, R. L. Ereno, Marcelo Fábio Gouveia Nogueira, J. Buratini, C. M. Barros

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationFollicular phaseAnimal scienceEstrous cycleInternal medicineEndocrinologyEstradiol benzoateAndrologyFollicleBiologyChemistryMedicineEstrogenHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present experiment was to verify the relationship among follicular diameter, ovulation rate, and gene expression of LH receptor (LHR) isoforms in order to know whether these aspects could or could not influence ovulation rates in Nellore cows. In Experiment 1, at a random stage of the estrous cycle (Day 0), Nellore cows (n = 53) received a progesterone intravaginal device (1.0 g, Primer®, Tecnopec, São Paulo, Brazil) and 2.5 mg of estradiol benzoate (EB; i.m. Estrogin®; Farmavet, São Paulo, Brazil). On Day 8, PGF2 (150 µg d-cloprostenol; Prolise® ARSA S.R.L., Buenos Aires, Argentina) was administered i.m. and the device was removed. Twenty-four hours after device removal, cows were treated i.m. with EB (1.0 mg) and, 48 h afterwards, ovulation was determined by ultrasonography (US; Aloka 900, Tokyo, Japan). Three days after ovulation, follicular growth was observed daily by US and cows were randomly allocated into 3 groups according to follicular diameter (mm) [G1 (7.0-8.0), G2 (8.1-9.0), and G3 (9.1-10.0)] to receive 6.25 mg of LH (i.m. Lutropin®-V, Bioniche, Belleville, Ontario, Canada), which corresponds to twice the minimum ovulatory dose (3.12 mg) as determined in a preliminary experiment. The results were analyzed by logistic regression (PROC GEN MOD, SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The ovulation rates were 9 (2/21), 36 (8/22), and 90% (9/10) for G1, G2, and G3, respectively. There were significant differences when comparing G1 v. G3 (P < 0.01), G2 v. G3 (P < 0.02), and G1 v. G2 (P < 0.03). In Experiment 2, granulosa and theca cells from Nellore cows were recovered from follicles obtained in a local abattoir and submitted to total RNA extraction and expression of LHR isoforms (LHR-B3, LHR-B4, LHR-B5, and LHR-B6) by semiquantitative RT-PCR using glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPD) as the internal control. Follicles were dissected, measured with a paquimeter, and allocated in 3 groups according to follicular diameter (mm): A (8.0-9.0), B (9.1-10.0), and C (10.1-11.0). Considering that follicles measured with paquimeter are on average 1.0 mm larger than those measured by US, Groups A, B, and C correspond to Groups G1, G2, and G3 (Experiment 1). In order to select only nonatretic (healthy) follicles, the E2/P4 >1.0 ratio was used. Therefore, from a total of 400 ovaries, only 5, 4, and 4 granulosa (n = 13) and 7, 8, and 8 theca samples (n = 23) from Groups A, B, and C, respectively, were obtained. The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Pearson’s correlation. There were no significant differences in total LHR expression (LHR-B3 + LHR-B4 + LHR-B5 + LHR-B6) in theca cells from Groups A, B, and C. However, in granulosa cells, follicles from Group A had lower LHR expression (16.5; mRNA LHR/mRNA GAPD) compared with Group C (37.6; P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between expression of LHR-B5 and LHR-B6 isoforms and an increase in follicular diameter. In conclusion, these preliminary results indicate that ovulatory capacity in Nellore cattle is related to an increase in follicular diameter and LHR expression in granulosa cells. R. A. L. Simões, R. A. Satrapa, and A. C. S. Castilho are recipients of fellowship and funding from FAPESP (São Paulo, Brazil).

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)0.001
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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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