4.2 Article

Seasonal and individual variation in response to GnRH challenge in male dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis)

期刊

GENERAL AND COMPARATIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 149, 期 2, 页码 182-189

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2006.05.013

关键词

GnRH challenge; gonadotropin releasing hormone; dark-eyed junco; Junco hyemalis; testosterone; seasonality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Concentrations of gonadal steroids such as testosterone (T) often vary widely in natural populations, but the causes and particularly the consistency of this variation is relatively unexplored. In breeding males of a wild population of the dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), we investigated seasonal and individual variation in circulating T during two breeding seasons by measuring the responsiveness of the HPG axis to a standardized injection of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH). Individuals were bled prior to and 30 min after injection. Pre- and post-challenge levels of T were measured using EIA. Many subjects were sampled repeatedly across multiple breeding stages. Plasma T concentrations nearly doubled in response to GnRH during early spring, but showed significantly smaller increases in later breeding stages. When controlling for seasonal variation in response to challenge, we also found repeatable differences among individuals, indicating individual consistency in the release of T in response to a standardized stimulus. These seasonal and individual differences may arise from comparable variation in responsiveness of the pituitary or a decline in gonadal sensitivity to downstream gonadotropins. In contrast, pre-challenge T showed almost no seasonal changes and did not differ consistently among individuals. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of individual repeatability of short-term hormonal changes in a wild population. Such repeatability suggests that hormonal plasticity might evolve in response to changing selection pressures. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据