Suppression of Follicle Wave Emergence in Cyclic Ewes by Supraphysiologic Concentrations of Estradiol-17beta and Induction with a Physiologic Dose of Exogenous Ovine Follicle-Stimulating Hormone1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Follicle waves are preceded by follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) peaks in ewes. The purpose of the present study was to see whether estradiol implant treatment would block FSH peaks to create a model in which the effect of the timing and mode of FSH peaks could be studied by ovine FSH (oFSH) injection. In Experiment 1, 10 ewes received estradiol-17beta implants on Day 4 after ovulation (Day 0, day of ovulation); five ewes received large implants, and five ewes received small implants. Five control ewes received empty implants. In Experiment 2, 12 ewes received large implants on Day 4. On Day 9, six ewes received oFSH twice, 8 h apart (0.5 microg/kg; s.c.). Implants were left in place for 10 days in both experiments. In both studies, ovarian ultrasonography and blood sampling was done daily. In Experiment 1, estradiol concentrations were significantly higher in ewes with large implants (10.4 +/- 0.7 pg/ml) compared with controls (3.9 +/- 0.7 pg/ml) and ewes with small implants (5.4 +/- 0.7 pg/ml; P < 0.001). A significant reduction was found in mean FSH peak concentration (31%; P < 0.05) and FSH peak amplitude (45%; P < 0.05) in ewes with large implants compared with controls. Mean and basal FSH concentrations were unaffected by the large implants. The large implants halted follicle-wave emergence between Day 0 and 8 after implant insertion. The small follicle pool (2-3 mm in diameter) was unaffected by the large implants. When oFSH was injected into ewes with large implants, a follicle wave emerged 1.5 +/- 0.5 days after injection; however, in ewes given saline alone, a follicle wave emerged 4.8 +/- 0.8 days after injection (P < 0.01). We concluded that truncation of FSH peaks by estradiol implants prevented follicle-wave emergence, but injection of physiologic concentrations of oFSH reinitiated follicle-wave emergence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".