MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771857423 · doi:10.1071/rdv30n1ab104

104 Distribution of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone and Kisspeptin Neurons in the Preoptic Area and Hypothalamus During the Estrous Cycle in Cows

2017· article· en· W2771857423 on OpenAlexaff
C. E. P. Leonardi, Rodrigo A. Carrasco, F. F. C. Dias, Gregory P. Adams, Jaswant Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueReproduction Fertility and Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndocrinologyInternal medicineOvulationEstrous cycleParaformaldehydeHypothalamusPreoptic areaGonadotropin-releasing hormoneBiologyCorpus luteumGonadotropinLuteinizing hormoneHormoneKisspeptinChemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gonadal steroids hormones indirectly regulate gonadotropin-rleasing hormone (GnRH) secretion. Kisspeptin (Kp) co-expresses steroid receptors and modulates GnRH release. The objective of the study was to characterise the number and proportion of GnRH and Kp immunoreactive cells and their association in the preoptic area (POA) and hypothalamus during different phases of the oestrous cycle in cows. Daily ovarian ultrasonography was performed to detect follicle development and ovulation (Day 0) after prostaglandin treatment. On Day 5, cows were assigned randomly to the following groups: proestrus (n = 2), metestrus (n = 2) or diestrus (n = 3). Cows in the diestrus group were killed on Day 8. Cows in the proestrus and metestrus groups were given luteolytic dose of prostaglandin on Day 5.5 and Day 6 and were killed on Day 7 and 24 h after the ensuing ovulation, respectively. Cow heads were perfused with 4% paraformaldehyde via the carotid arteries to fix the brain in situ. The brain-stem (rostral portion of the POA to the mamillary body) was isolated by dissection and placed in 4% paraformaldehyde for 48 h. Following cryoprotection, the tissue block containing the POA and hypothalamus was frozen at –80°C and sectioned serially at a thickness of 50 mm using a cryostat microtome. Every 20th free-floating section was processed for double labelling using 2 sequential immuno-peroxidase reactions and ABC staining; Kp was immuno-labelled with Nickel-DAB at a dilution of 1:10,000 rabbit anti-kisspeptin (AC566, INRA, France), and GnRH was stained with DAB using 1:40,000 rabbit anti-GnRH (LR-5, Dr Benoit). The numbers of neuron cell bodies and fibres were recorded in different areas of the POA and the hypothalamus by brightfield microscopy using 10× and 40× objective lenses. Data were compared among groups by ANOVA. Major aggregations of Kp cells were localised in the mPOA, OVLT, and ARC. Overall, the number of Kp cells was higher in the metestrus v. diestrus group (719 ± 94 v. 378 ± 8; P = 0.01), but was similar to the proestrus group (558 ± 9). The number of Kp cells in the POA (mPOA, OVLT) tended to be higher in the metestrus v. diestrus group (395 ± 56 v. 147 ± 44; P = 0.06), and was intermediate in the proestrus group (206 ± 6). The number of Kp cells in the ARC did not differ among groups (metestrus 310 ± 26, diestrus 206 ± 53, proestrus 321 ± 99; P = 0.4). The number of GnRH cells bodies was not different among groups (metestrus 40 ± 3, diestrus 50 ± 9, proestrus 43 ± 8; combined; P = 0.8), and the distribution was higher in the POA (metestrus 25 ± 2, diestrus 30 ± 3, proestrus 33 ± 2) than hypothalamus. The proportion of GnRH cells in apposition to Kp fibres tended to be highest in the proestrus v. metestrus and diestrus groups (50.5 ± 1% v. 34.1 ± 9% and 31.4 ± 3%; P = 0.09). In conclusion, the number of Kp immunoreactive cells, but not GnRH cells, present in the POA and hypothalamus changed among different phases of the oestrous cycle due primarily to an increase in number of Kp cells in POA during metestrus. The proestrous phase was associated with an increase in apposition between Kp fibres and GnRH cells.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

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 studies0.0010.000
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 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproduction Fertility and DevelopmentSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207