4.2 Article

Cortisol and corticosterone independence in cortisol-dominant wildlife

期刊

GENERAL AND COMPARATIVE ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 177, 期 1, 页码 113-119

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2012.02.020

关键词

Glucocorticoids; LC-MS/MS; Mammals; Serum; SPE; Stress

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  3. Alberta Education and Technology
  4. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Calgary

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Species have traditionally been defined as cortisol-dominant or corticosterone-dominant, depending on the glucocorticoid that is reported. To assess the degree of covariance versus independence between cortisol and corticosterone, 245 serum samples belonging to 219 individuals from 18 cortisol-dominant, non-domesticated species (6 mammalian orders) were compared by mass spectrometry. In these samples, which were elevated above baseline, concentration ranges were overlapping for cortisol and corticosterone although cortisol was dominant in every sample except one of 17 bighorn sheep with a corticosterone-biased cortisol-to-corticosterone ratio of 0.17. As expected, cortisol and corticosterone were strongly associated among species (r(2) = 0.8; species with high absolute cortisol tend to have high absolute corticosterone concentrations), with wide variation in the species-average cortisol-to-corticosterone ratio (range 7.5-49) and an even wider ratio range across individuals (0.2-341). However, only 9 out of 13 species with >7 individuals showed a positive association between cortisol and corticosterone among individuals, and repeated measures of the cortisol-to-corticosterone ratio within individuals were weakly associated (CV range 3-136%). We conclude that corticosterone, although at lower concentrations, has the potential to signal independently of cortisol, and should be included in integrated endocrine models of stress responses. (C) 2012 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