3.8 Article

Prolactin and lipopolysaccharide treatment increased apoptosis and atresia in rat ovarian follicles

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 172, 期 1, 页码 17-25

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-201X.2001.00813.x

关键词

apoptosis; granulosa cells; lipopolysaccharide; macrophages; prolactin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Follicular atresia is associated with the presence of increased macrophages within the follicle. What is not known is whether, in the adult rat, macrophages are instrumental in inducing apoptosis and/or atresia or whether they are simply secondary to a hormonally mediated event. As prolactin is an immunoreactive hormone and stimulates the expression of monocyte chemoattractant, the present experiments compared the effects of prolactin treatment with that of an immune challenge with lipopolysaccharide (LPS) on the invasion of macrophages into the follicular and luteal compartments of the ovary and the occurrence of apoptosis/atresia in relation to macrophage invasion. Rats were treated for 3 days with either prolactin or LPS and ovaries obtained at pro-oestrus or oestrus. Prolactin and LPS increased the number of atretic vs. healthy follicles (P < 0.008, (2)) in pro-oestrus ovaries and increased the mean number of apoptotic cells and macrophages (P < 0.05 for some groups). Macrophages were typically observed in the thecal layer, apoptotic cells in the granulosa cell layer, although 84% follicles which had macrophages within the granulosa cell layer also contained relatively high numbers of apoptotic nuclei. Prolactin and LPS treatment in vivo reduced the progesterone response to follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) (P < 0.001) in cultures of ovarian dispersates but did not inhibit the response to forskolin. In contrast, prolactin or LPS added in vitro to the cultures inhibited the progesterone response to forskolin. Results shaw that both prolactin and LPS increase follicular apoptosis and atresia and reduce the progesterone response to FSH.

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

3.8
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