MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072833051 · doi:10.1071/rdv18n2ab13

13 EFFECTS OF PLASMA PROGESTERONE CONCENTRATIONS ON LH RELEASE AND OVULATION IN BEEF CATTLE GIVEN GnRH

2005· article· en· W2072833051 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harry N. Davis, M.G. Colazo, M. Rutledge, J. A. Small, J. Kastelic, R.J. Mapletoft

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvulationEstrous cycleAnimal scienceProstaglandin fInternal medicineProstaglandinBeef cattleEndocrinologyPlasma concentrationFollicleAndrologyBiologyMedicineHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of plasma progesterone (P4) concentrations on LH release and ovulation in beef heifers and lactating beef cows given gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). Previously autoclaved, once-used CIDR inserts (Colazo et al. 2004 Anim. Reprod. Sci. 81, 25-34) were used for experimental purposes to induce differential plasma progesterone concentrations. In Experiment 1, postpubertal heifers received 25 mg of dinoprost i.m. (prostaglandin F (PGF); Lutalyse; Pfizer Animal Health, Montreal, Quebec, Canada). On Day 4 (estrus = Day 0), heifers were randomly assigned (10/group) to receive no treatment (control) or 1 or 2 autoclaved once-used CIDR (Pfizer Animal Health) inserts (1CIDR and 2CIDR, respectively). On Day 5, heifers in the 1CIDR group were given PGF twice 12 h apart. On Day 6, all heifers received 100 µg of GnRH i.m. (Cystorelin; Merial Canada, Inc., Victoriaville, Quebec, Canada). Once daily on Days 4 to 9, a blood sample was collected and ultrasonography was performed. On Day 6, heifers in the control (3.0 ± 0.4 ng/mL; mean ± SD) and 1CIDR groups (3.0 ± 0.3 ng/mL) had lower ( P < 0.01) plasma progesterone concentrations than those in the 2CIDR group (5.7 ± 0.4 ng/mL). However, the diameter of the dominant follicle was larger ( P < 0.001) in heifers in the control and 1CIDR groups than in the 2CIDR group (12.1 ± 1.0, 11.5 ± 0.7, and 10.1 ± 0.7 mm, respectively). More ( P < 0.01) heifers ovulated in response to GnRH in the control and 1CIDR groups than in the 2CIDR group (10/10, 9/10, and 3/10, respectively). In Experiment 2, ultrasound-guided follicular ablation (FA) was performed (to synchronize ovarian follicular wave emergence) 4 to 6 days after estrus in 20 postpubertal heifers and 20 mature lactating cows. Cattle were randomly and equally assigned to receive an autoclaved, once-used CIDR, either with no further treatment (High-P4) or with two PGF treatments 12 h apart (Low-P4) given after FA. All cattle received 100 µg of GnRH either 6 days after FA or the day after the dominant follicle reached 9 mm in diameter. Ultrasonography was performed daily (from 4 days after FA to ovulation or to 3 days after GnRH treatment). In three cows and three heifers per group, blood samples were collected every 30 min for 12 h after GnRH. The dominant follicle at GnRH treatment was larger in cows than heifers (11.0 ± 1.1 vs. 10.3 ± 0.9 mm, respectively; P = 0.05) and tended to be smaller in the High-P4 group vs. the Low-P4 group (10.3 ± 1.0 vs. 11.0 ± 1.0 mm; P = 0.06). Ovulatory response was not different ( P = 0.9) between heifers (77.7%) and cows (78.9%), but combined for heifers and cows, was lower in High-P4 vs. Low-P4 cattle (61.1 vs. 94.7; P < 0.01). The GnRH-induced LH surge did not differ ( P = 0.23) between cows and heifers, but it was lower and of shorter duration ( P < 0.001) in the High-P4 group than in the Low-P4 group. In summary, higher plasma P4 concentrations resulted in decreased LH release and the proportion of cattle ovulating in response to GnRH treatment. There was no significant difference between heifers and cows in LH release or ovulatory response.

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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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