HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Al-Gubory, K. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Al-Gubory, K. H.

Lack of suppressive action of luteal factors from sheep corpus luteum on LH response to exogenous LHRH in ovariectomized, pregnant and post-partum ewes

In vivo studies have provided evidence of a non-steroidal factor from ovine corpora lutea (CL) of pregnancy called LH-release inhibiting factor (LH-RIF), which specifically inhibits tonic LH release without affecting FSH secretion. To study the possible pituitary site of action of LH-RIF and other factors from sheep CL of pregnancy, the LH response to LHRH was investigated in ovariectomized (OVX) ewes pretreated with ovine luteal extract (oLE) from CL of mid-pregnancy, and in pregnant and post-partum ewes from which the CL were removed at mid-pregnancy. In view of the fact that human follicular fluid (hFF) contains a non-steroidal factor, called gonadotrophin surge-attenuating factor, which attenuates the LHRH-induced LH release, it was clearly important to examine the LHRHinduced LH release in OVX ewes pretreated with oLE or hFF. In experiment 1, the LH and FSH responses (the maximum LH and FSH concentrations, the time to maximum LH and FSH concentrations and the area under the LH and FSH response curves) to a single i.v. injection of 5 µg of the LHRH agonist buserelin was not significantly different between ewes pretreated with oLE and ewes pretreated with BSA. Although the LHRH-induced LH and FSH release was slightly attenuated in OVX ewes pretreated with hFF as compared with OVX ewes pretreated with BSA, the maximum LH and FSH concentrations and the area under the LH and FSH response curves were not significantly different between the two groups of ewes. In experiment 2, the LH responses to a single i.v. injection of 0.5 µg LHRH on days 80 and 100 of pregnancy were not significantly different between intact ewes and ewes from which the CL were removed on day 70 of pregnancy. In both groups of ewes the maximum LH concentration and the area under the LH response curve were significantly lower (p<0·02) on day 100 than on day 80 of pregnancy. In experiment 3, the LH responses to a single i.v. injection of 50 µg LHRH on day 140 of pregnancy and on day 10 post-partum were not significantly different between intact ewes and ewes from which the CL were removed on day 70 of pregnancy. In both groups of ewes the maximum LH concentration and the area under the LH response curve were significantly lower (p<0·01) on day 140 of pregnancy than on day 10 post-partum.

These experiments provide evidence for a lack of suppressive action of luteal secretory products from the ovine CL of pregnancy on the pituitary LH response to LHRH in OVX, pregnant and post-partum ewes.

European Journal of Endocrinology 136 114–120