The relationship between gonadotropin releasing hormone and ovulation inducing factor/nerve growth factor receptors in the hypothalamus of the llama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A molecule identical to nerve growth factor, with ovulation-inducing properties has been discovered in the seminal plasma of South American camelids (ovulation-inducing factor/nerve growth factor; OIF/NGF). We hypothesize that the ovulatory effect of OIF/NGF is initiated at the level of the hypothalamus, presumably by GnRH neurons. The objective of the present study was to determine the structural relationship between GnRH neurons and neurons expressing high- and low-affinity receptors for NGF (i.e., TrkA and p75, respectively) in the hypothalamus. METHODS: Mature llamas (n = 4) were euthanized and their hypothalamic tissue was fixed, sectioned, and processed for immunohistochemistry on free-floating sections. Ten equidistant sections per brain were double stained for immunofluorescence detection of TrkA and GnRH, or p75 and GnRH. RESULTS: Cells immunoreactive to TrkA were detected in most hypothalamic areas, but the majority of cells were detected in the diagonal band of Broca (part of the ventral forebrain) and the supraoptic nuclei and periventricular area. The number of cells immunoreactive to p75 was highest in the diagonal band of Broca and lateral preoptic areas and least in more caudal areas of the hypothalamus (p < 0.05) in a pattern similar to that of TrkA. A low proportion of GnRH neurons were immunoreactive to TrkA (2.5% of total GnRH cells), and no co-localization between GnRH and p75 was detected. GnRH neuron fibers were detected only occasionally in proximity to TrkA immunopositive neurons. CONCLUSIONS: Results do not support the hypothesis that the effect of OIF/NGF is driven by a direct interaction with GnRH neurons, but rather provide rationale for the hypothesis that interneurons exist in the hypothalamus that mediate OIF/NGF-induced ovulation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".