Biol Reprod
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, T.
Right arrow Articles by O'Callaghan, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, T.
Right arrow Articles by O'Callaghan, D.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Sweeney, T.
Right arrow Articles by O'Callaghan, D.
Biology of Reproduction 60, 128-133 (1999)
©Copyright 1999 Society for the Study of Reproduction, Inc.

Seasonal Variation in Long-Day Stimulation of Prolactin Secretion in Ewes1

T. Sweeney2,a, G. Kellyb, and D. O'Callaghana

a Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and b Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland

Whereas ewes initiate reproductive activity in response to a photoperiod signal initiated after the winter solstice of 35 long days (35 LD) followed by short days, the reproductive axis fails to respond to this signal between the autumn equinox and the winter solstice. The aim of experiment 1 was to determine whether the prolactin axis, like the reproductive axis, is unresponsive to a 35 LD photoperiod signal followed by continuous exposure to short days between the autumn equinox and the winter solstice. Whereas the 35 LD signal from September 21 (<= 6 h increase in day length) failed to influence prolactin secretion, all other long-day treatments (> 6 h increase in day length) initiated a rise in prolactin in at least 75% of ewes in each group (p < 0.05). The aim of experiment 2 was to determine whether ewes failed to secrete prolactin during a 35 LD photoperiod from September 21 because they did not recognize a 6-h increase in day length at any time of year as a stimulatory photoperiod signal or because hypothalamic/pituitary regulation of prolactin synthesis or secretion is compromised in September. The results demonstrated that while hypothalamic regulation of prolactin secretion and pituitary stores of prolactin were normal at all times of year examined, the ability of ewes to secrete prolactin in response to a long-day photoperiod signal appears to be dependent on photoperiodic history rather than the time of year of the photoperiodic challenge.

1 Preliminary reports: Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 1995; Abst. Ser. No. 15, Abst. No. 20 and Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 1997; Abst. Ser. No. 19, Abst. No. 153.

2 Correspondence: T. Sweeney, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland. FAX: 353 1 6600883; tsweeney{at}vetmed.ucd.ie






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction.