Reproduction   citetrack
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Reproduction (2008) 135 733-738
DOI: 10.1530/REP-07-0505
Copyright © 2008 Society for Reproduction and Fertility
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
135/5/733    most recent
REP-07-0505v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
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
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stormshak, F
Right arrow Articles by Roselli, C E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stormshak, F
Right arrow Articles by Roselli, C E

RESEARCH

Changes in LH secretion in response to an estradiol challenge in male- and female-oriented rams and in ewes

F Stormshak1, C T Estill2, J A Resko3 and C E Roselli3

1 Department of Animal Sciences2 College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-4501 USA3 Department of Physiology and Pharmacology L334, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, Oregon 97201-3098, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to C E Roselli; Email: rosellic{at}ohsu.edu


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Two experiments were conducted to determine whether an estradiol challenge could cause a female-type LH surge in castrated male- and female-oriented rams (MORs and FORs). Administration of 17β-estradiol to castrated MORs and FORs and ovariectomized ewes caused an initial reduction in LH secretion followed for 12–20 h by a surge release of LH in the ewes. No surge release of LH occurred in the MORs and FORs. The pattern of changes in LH secretion within rams and ewes did not differ between the breeding and nonbreeding seasons. Treatment failed to elicit female-typical receptive sexual behaviors in the rams but did stimulate increased sexual receptivity in the ewes as determined by the measures of responsiveness to the teaser ram. Overall, no differences were found in hypothalamic–hypophyseal function in response to exogenous estradiol between MORs and FORs. These data are interpreted to suggest that in contrast to sexual attraction, the neural mechanisms controlling the LH surge and female receptivity are defeminized in MORs.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
It has been previously established that castration of rams causes a significant increase in systemic plasma concentrations of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH; Riggs & Malven 1974, Schanbacher & Ford 1977) and frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone pulses in hypophyseal portal blood (Caraty & Locatelli 1988). Administration of androgens and estrogens to castrated rams causes a marked decrease in plasma concentrations of the gonadotropins (Crim & Geschwind 1972, D'Occhio et al. 1982, Tilbrook et al. 1991). Although cells that express steroid receptors are widely distributed throughout the sheep hypothalamus, significant concentrations of androgen (ram) and estrogen (ram and ewe) receptors are located in the medial preoptic area, arcuate and ventromedial nuclei of the hypothalamus (Herbison 1995). The presence of steroid receptors in the hypothalamus and pituitary gland (Glass et al. 1984, Schanbacher et al. 1984) suggest that negative feedback by androgen or estrogen on gonadotropin secretion occurs at both the hypothalamus and pituitary.

Most rams readily court, mount, intromit, and ejaculate with estrous ewes and are classified as female-oriented rams (FORs). However, ~4–8% of rams express an exclusive sexual preference for other rams and are classified as male-oriented rams (MORs). Castration of MORs and FORs results in the reduction of mounting behavior and ejaculations (Pinckard et al. 2000). Treatment of these rams with 17β-estradiol (E2) failed to restore sexual behaviors to precastration levels in both MORs and FORs. Whether the E2 given to MORs may have affected their secretion of gonadotropins, especially LH, was not determined. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate whether MORs are capable of responding to E2 treatment with an LH surge and/or expression of female-typical sexual behavior.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
Treatment of ovariectomized ewes with E2 during the nonbreeding season (Fig. 1A) induced a biphasic pattern of change in serum LH concentrations consisting of an initial depression (negative feedback) followed by an LH peak, similar to a preovulatory surge (positive feedback). A similar pattern of response to E2 was observed during the breeding season when the ewes were treated with progestin preceding a bolus injection of E2 (Fig. 2A). Rams also exhibited an initial negative feedback response to E2 during both the nonbreeding and breeding seasons (Figs 1B and C and 2B and C). However, in contrast to ewes, this suppression of LH was not followed by a positive feedback-like release of LH, but rather by a prolonged recovery and overshoot to concentrations exceeding those prior to E2 administration (Figs 1B and C and 2B and C). Two-way ANOVA comparisons between MORs and FORs revealed no significant differences in their responses to the E2 challenge. Injection of E2 produced peak serum concentrations of E2 of 100–150 pg/ml.


Figure 1
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1 Changes in LH secretion in (A) ovariectomized ewes, (B) male-oriented rams, and (C) female-oriented rams after injection (0 h) of 17β-estradiol (E2; 50 µg i.m.) during the nonbreeding season. For each group, changes in LH concentrations were analyzed by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Fisher's least square difference test. Asterisk signifies significant difference compared with pretreatment LH concentrations.

 

Figure 2
View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2 Effect of exogenous 17β-estradiol (E2) on LH secretion in progestin-suppressed (A) ovariectomized ewes, (B) male-oriented rams, and (C) female-oriented rams during the breeding season. Sheep were treated for 5 days with a progestin implant to suppress LH, then given an i.m. injection of E2 (50 µg) 18 h after the implant was removed (0 h). Data were analyzed by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Fisher's least square difference test. Asterisk signifies significant difference compared with pretreatment LH concentration.

 
The characteristics of LH responses to E2 in individual animals are shown in Table 1. Before estrogen stimulation, baseline concentrations of LH were similar in ewes, MORs, and FORs during both seasons. An LH surge was elicited in 50% of the ovariectomized ewes during the nonbreeding season and 100% of progesterone-suppressed ewes during the breeding season. The LH surge began ~14 h after estrogen exposure and lasted for 8–10 h during both tests. Mean surge levels of LH were three times higher during the nonbreeding season (76.5 ng/ml) than the breeding season (23.4±9.8 S.E.M). One MOR (#9351) showed LH levels that met the criterion for an LH surge in both experiments; however, the response latency and duration were longer and the peak levels substantially lower than these same parameters in the ewes, making it unlikely that this response constitutes a true female-typical surge response. One FOR (#5610) in experiment 2 also showed LH levels that met the criterion for an LH surge, but like the MOR the response was longer and more attenuated than that observed in the ewes. Composite results from two representative animals of each group from experiment 2 are shown in Fig. 3.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Characteristics of luteinizing hormone (LH) responses to 17β-estradiol (E2; 50 µg) injections during the nonbreeding season (Exp. 1) and in progestin-suppressed sheep during the breeding season (Exp. 2).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3 Temporal relationship between serum levels of 17β-estradiol (E2) and serum concentrations of LH in two representative (A) ovariectomized ewes, (B) male-oriented rams, and (C) female-oriented rams. An LH surge was defined as LH values exceeding twice the average pre-estradiol baseline for a minimum of 6 h (three consecutive samples).

 
When individually paired with a ram, control ewes displayed both proceptive and receptive behaviors that distinguished them from both groups of rams (Fig. 4). All six ewes exhibited head-turning behavior (turns) in which they looked back at the ram while facing away. Only the ewes exhibited standing behavior and consequently received mounts (100% of ewes) and ejaculations (67% of ewes) from the teaser ram. None of the rams (MORs or FORs) showed female-type receptivity.


Figure 4
View larger version (22K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4 Percentage of ewes, MORs, and FORs that displayed specific components of female sexual behavior in response to surge-inducing doses of E2. Twenty-four hours after E2 was injected, animals were individually paired with a stud male for 5 min and behaviors were recorded. Turn refers to head turn to rear; fan, tail wagging; stand, receptive female stance; sniff, genital sniffs. a,bBars with different superscripts differed (P<0.05).

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 
It has previously been demonstrated that castration of rams and ovariectomy of ewes ultimately causes increased secretion of the gonadotropins (Tilbrook et al. 1991). This rise in secretion of the gonadotropins is presumably due to the absence of the negative feedback of gonadal steroids on the hypothalamic–hypophyseal axis. This is confirmed by the fact that administration of androgens and estrogens to castrated rams (Tilbrook et al. 1991) and ewes (Clarke & Cummins 1984) cause a comparatively rapid decrease in the blood concentrations of the gonadotropins.

The results of the present study demonstrate that treatment with E2, whether alone or preceded by progestin treatment, elicits a preovulatory-like surge of LH secretion in ovariectomized ewes, but not in castrated MORs or FORs. These data confirm earlier reports that the mechanism by which systemic E2 induces an LH surge (i.e., the surge mechanism) in sheep is found only in females (Bolt 1971, Karsch & Foster 1974). A previous study by Perkins et al. (1995) reached a similar conclusion; however, it was not known whether the presence of the testes and the nature of circulating hormones in gonadally intact animals could have masked the differences in the responsiveness of MORs and FORs. The results of the present experiment using gonadectomized rams demonstrated that this is not the case and that both types of rams are unresponsive to the positive feedback effect of E2. Our data also showed that while the regimen of progestin treatment, followed by E2, elicited robust female-typical, sexual behavior in the ewes, it did not do so in MORs and FORs.

The lack of responsiveness to E2 in MORs and FORs suggests that both groups of males were exposed to levels of testosterone during development that suppressed the LH surge mechanism and capacity for exhibiting female sexual behavior. Thus, these aspects of neuroendocrine function and behavior appear to be defeminized in MORs to the same extent as would be expected in FORs. Although earlier work in humans suggested that homosexual but not heterosexual men are responsive to estrogen feedback (Gladue et al. 1984, Dorner 1988), this observation was subsequently refuted (Gooren 2006). Rather, the surge mechanism in humans and nonhuman primates is equally competent in both sexes in contrast to rodents and sheep where it is permanently inhibited (i.e., defeminized) by perinatal exposure to androgens (Karsch et al. 1973, Karsch & Foster 1974).

The observation that MORs are attracted to males and not to females suggests the neural mechanisms that control sexual attraction are not defeminized. In female sheep, prenatal exposure to testosterone, but not to dihydrotestosterone, suppresses adult receptive behavior and the LH surge response to E2, suggesting that these features of behavioral and neuronal defeminization are accomplished prenatally and possibly involve aromatization (Wood & Foster 1998, Masek et al. 1999). Prenatal aromatization of testosterone also appears to be involved in behavioral masculinization in sheep (Masek et al. 1999, Roselli et al. 2006). By contrast, there is no evidence that prenatal aromatization is responsible for defeminization of sexual attraction in sheep (Roselli et al. 2006).

Research on several species indicates that defeminization of receptive responsiveness and sexual partner preference constitute separate processes (Wallen & Baum 2002). In pigs, it appears that defeminization of sexual partner preference is achieved by exposure to estrogenic metabolites of testosterone early after birth (Adkins-Regan et al. 1989), whereas defeminization of receptive responsiveness requires more prolonged pre- and postnatal exposure to testosterone (Ford & Christenson 1987). Male ferrets show no evidence of receptive defeminization, yet show a strong preference to approach the odors, sights, and sounds of opposite-sex versus same-sex stimulus ferrets (Baum 1979, Kelliher & Baum 2001). In view of these studies, it is evident that the critical period is not a single entity for all sexually differentiated brain functions. In fact, recent research has provided strong evidence that postnatal steroid exposure is needed to completely defeminize the estrogen-positive feedback mechanism in the sheep (Foster et al. 2006). Thus, further research is needed to determine the timing and hormonal requirements for behavioral sexual differentiation in the sheep.

Male sheep undergo seasonal changes in the secretion of LH and testosterone primarily because of alterations in the photoperiod (Schanbacher & Ford 1976). These changes are most marked in ram breeds adapted to temperate climates. It has been found that concentrations of LH, frequency of LH pulses, and concentrations of FSH are greater during the breeding season than the nonbreeding season (Tilbrook & Clarke 2001). These seasonal variations in gonadotropin secretion are observed in castrated rams, indicating that photoperiod may act directly to affect the activity of the hypothalamic–hypophyseal unit, although photoperiod has also been shown to indirectly alter testosterone feedback (Tilbrook & Clarke 1995). In the current study, the administration of E2 to ovariectomized ewes evoked the same pattern of LH secretion during both the nonbreeding and breeding seasons, i.e., an initial depression in LH secretion followed in ~18 h by a peak release of the gonadotropin. Similarly, during the nonbreeding and breeding seasons, administration of E2 to castrated MORs and FORs caused an initial decrease in LH secretion but there was no surge of LH release as occurred in the ovariectomized ewes. Generally, these data suggest no differences in E2-induced LH secretion due to season. Although nuclear estrogen receptors exist in the anterior pituitary of the ram, the recent data of Arreguin-Arevalo & Nett (2006) suggest that the initial depression in LH secretion, which occurs in response to exogenous estrogen, is a consequence of the nongenomic action of this steroid.

In summary, MORs and FORs failed to respond to exogenous E2 with a surge release of LH as detected in ovariectomized ewes. However, administration of E2 to the rams and ewes did cause an almost immediate decrease in basal serum concentrations of LH. None of the rams responded to the exogenous E2 with female-typical receptivity. These data suggest that in contrast to sexual attraction, the neural mechanisms controlling the LH surge and female receptivity are defeminized in MORs.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
Acknowledgements
 References
 
Animals
Eighteen adult sheep (~4 years old) of mixed Western breeds obtained from the United States Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Idaho, and reared as described previously (Resko et al. 1996) were used in this study. Ewes were ovariectomized and rams were gonadectomized by the veterinary surgeons at Oregon State University (OSU) at least 2 months before beginning the experiment. All procedures were performed in accordance with NIH guidelines and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use committee at OSU.

Ram classifications
At ~18 months of age, rams were given sexual behavior tests so that they could be classified according to their sexual preference. The complete testing procedure has been described previously (Resko et al. 1996, Stellflug & Berardinelli 2002, Roselli et al. 2004). Briefly, it consisted of 9 h of tests with estrous ewes followed by four sexual partner preference tests in which the rams were allowed to choose between two estrous ewes and two unfamiliar rams that were all restrained. The sexual partner preference tests were conducted at the US Sheep Experiment Station over two consecutive years (two tests per year) in order to identify the rams that mated exclusively with males (i.e., MORs) and the rams that mated exclusively with females (i.e., FORs). All behavior tests were conducted during the breeding season (September to December). The numbers of genital sniffs, foreleg kicks, vocalizations, flehmen responses, mount attempts, mounts, and ejaculations were recorded during testing. The performance of the experimental rams in the sexual partner preference tests is summarized in Table 2. Age-matched experimental ewes were also obtained from the US Sheep Experiment Station. The rams and ewes were trucked to Oregon State University in the spring after testing was completed and behavioral assignments were made. They were housed in single-sex groups in larger fenced pastures with free access to water.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Averages (±S.E.M.) of behaviors exhibited by female- and male-oriented rams during exposure to two estrous ewes and two rams in four separate 30-min partner preference tests.

 
Experimental design
Two experiments were performed to evaluate the LH surge system in MORs, FORs, and control ewes.

Experiment 1: estradiol challenge
This experiment was conducted in July during the nonbreeding season. The sheep were given a single i.m. injection of 50 µg E2. Blood samples (7 ml) were collected at 2 h intervals from an indwelling jugular vein catheter starting 2 h before and continuing for 48 h after the injection. Serum was harvested from the blood and stored at –20 °C until assayed for LH and E2. An individual LH surge was defined as LH values exceeding twice the average pre-estradiol baseline concentration for a minimum of six consecutive hours i.e., three consecutive samples (Masek et al. 1999).

Experiment 2: progestin suppression followed by estradiol challenge
This experiment was conducted in December during the breeding season. As described previously (Roselli et al. 2006), sheep were treated for 5 days with a progestin (norgestomet) ear implant (Syncromate-B; Rhone Merieux Inc., Athens, GA, USA) to suppress serum LH concentrations. Eighteen hours after implant removal the sheep received an i.m. injection of 50 µg E2. Venous blood samples (7 ml) were collected from an indwelling catheter at 2-h intervals starting at 4 h before and continuing for 36 h after the injection. Serum was harvested and stored at –20 °C until assayed for LH. The LH surges were defined as described above. Progestin priming simulates the elevated luteal progesterone levels during the estrous cycle of the ewe and has been shown to be essential for full expression of the positive feedback effect of E2 (Caraty & Skinner 1999). All sheep were tested for female-typical sexual behavior at 24 h after E2 injection.

Female sexual behavior
All rams and ewes were tested for female-typical sexual behavior during evaluation of the LH surge response. In adult females, sexual receptivity can be assessed 24 h after E2 injection (Fabre-Nys & Martin 1991, Masek et al. 1999). To evaluate the quality of female sexual behavior after 24 h of E2 stimulation, each experimental sheep was paired with a sexually vigorous stud ram for 5 min. Proceptive (sniff, head turns, tail fanning), receptive (standing), and agonistic behaviors (butts) were recorded by a single observer.

Hormone measurements
Serum concentrations of LH were determined in duplicate by RIA according to previously published methods (Fitzgerald & Stellflug 1991). The mean detection limit of the assays (2 S.D. from the buffer controls) was 0.3 ng/ml. The intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation were 13 and 15% respectively. Serum concentrations of E2 were measured by RIA after ether extraction and column chromatography fractionation as described previously (Resko et al. 1975). The recovery of E2 was 81% and the intra- and interassay coefficients of variation were 7.0 and 11.5% respectively.

Statistical analysis
Within-group data on changes in serum concentrations of LH in response to E2 injections were analyzed by one-way repeated-measures ANOVA after the data were log transformed to normalize variances. Data on the LH surge responses of MORs and FORs were analyzed by two-way repeated-measures ANOVA. When overall treatment effects were found, the post hoc Fisher's least square difference test was performed to determine significant differences among means. Behavioral data were analyzed by Fisher's exact probability tests, adjusted for multiple comparisons. In all cases, differences between groups were considered to be significant at P<0.05.


   Acknowledgements
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
References
 
The authors gratefully acknowledge Dr John Stellflug for his invaluable role in the behavioral characterization of the rams at the US Sheep Experiment Station, Dubois, ID, and Verne LeVoy for measuring LH. This work was supported by NIH Grant RO1 RR014270. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that would prejudice the impartiality of this scientific work.

Received 9 November 2007
First decision 2 January 2008
Accepted 29 January 2008

   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Results
 Discussion
 Materials and Methods
 Acknowledgements
 References
 

Adkins-Regan E, Orgeur P & Signoret JP 1989 Sexual differentiation of reproductive behavior in pigs: defeminizing effects of prepubertal estradiol. Hormones and Behavior 23 290–303.[CrossRef][Medline]

Arreguin-Arevalo JA & Nett TM 2006 A nongenomic action of estradiol as the mechanism underlying the acute suppression of secretion of luteinizing hormone in ovariectomized ewes. Biology of Reproduction 74 202–208.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Baum MJ 1979 Differentiation of coital behavior in mammals: a comparative analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 3 265–284.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Bolt DJ 1971 Changes in the concentration of luteinizing hormone in plasma of rams following administration of oestradiol, progesterone or testosterone. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 24 435–438.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Caraty A & Locatelli A 1988 Effect of time after castration on secretion of LHRH and LH in the ram. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 82 263–269.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Caraty A & Skinner DC 1999 Progesterone priming is essential for the full expression of the positive feedback effect of estradiol in inducing the preovulatory gonadotropin-releasing hormone surge in the ewe. Endocrinology 140 165–170.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Clarke IJ & Cummins JT 1984 Direct pituitary effects of estrogen and progesterone on gonadotropin secretion in the ovariectomized ewe. Neuroendocrinology 39 267–274.[Web of Science][Medline]

Crim LW & Geschwind IL 1972 Patterns of FSH and LH secretion in the developing ram: the influence of castration and replacement therapy with testosterone propionate. Biology of Reproduction 7 47–54.[Abstract]

D'Occhio MJ, Schanbacher BD & Kinder JE 1982 Relationship between serum testosterone concentration and patterns of luteinizing hormone secretion in male sheep. Endocrinology 110 1547–1554.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Dorner G 1988 Neuroendocrine response to estrogen and brain differentiation in heterosexuals, homosexuals, and transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior 17 57–75.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Fabre-Nys C & Martin GB 1991 Hormonal control of proceptive and receptive sexual behavior and the preovulatory LH surge in the ewe: reassessment of the respective roles of estradiol, testosterone, and progesterone. Hormones and Behavior 25 295–312.[CrossRef][Medline]

Fitzgerald JA & Stellflug JN 1991 Effects of melatonin on seasonal changes in reproduction of rams. Journal of Animal Science 69 264–275.[Abstract]

Ford JJ & Christenson RK 1987 Influences of pre- and postnatal testosterone treatment on defeminization of sexual receptivity in pigs. Biology of Reproduction 36 581–587.[Abstract]

Foster DL, Jackson LM & Padmanabhan V 2006 Programming of GnRH feedback controls timing puberty and adult reproductive activity. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology 254–255 109–119.

Gladue BA, Green R & Hellman RE 1984 Neuroendocrine response to estrogen and sexual orientation. Science 225 1496–1499.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Glass JD, Amann RP & Nett TM 1984 Effects of season and sex on the distribution of cytosolic oestrogen receptors within the brain and the anterior pituitary gland of sheep. Biology of Reproduction 30 894–902.[Abstract]

Gooren L 2006 The biology of psychosexual differentiation. Hormones and Behavior 50 589–601.[CrossRef][Medline]

Herbison AE 1995 Neurochemical identity of neurones expressing oestrogen and androgen receptors in sheep hypothalamus. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement 49 271–283.

Karsch FJ & Foster DL 1974 Sexual differentiation of the mechanism controlling the preovulatory discharge of luteinizing hormone in sheep. Endocrinology 97 373–379.[Web of Science]

Karsch FJ, Dierschke DJ & Knobil E 1973 Sexual differentiation of pituitary function: apparent difference between primates and rodents. Science 179 484–486.

Kelliher KR & Baum MJ 2001 Nares occlusion eliminates heterosexual partner selection without disrupting coitus in ferrets of both sexes. Journal of Neuroscience 21 5832–5840.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Masek KS, Wood RI & Foster DL 1999 Prenatal dihydrotestosterone differentially masculinizes tonic and surge modes of luteinizing hormone secretion in sheep. Endocrinology 140 3459–3466.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Perkins A, Fitzgerald JA & Moss GE 1995 A comparison of LH secretion and brain estradiol receptors in heterosexual and homosexual rams and female sheep. Hormones and Behavior 29 31–41.[CrossRef][Medline]

Pinckard KL, Stellflug J & Stormshak F 2000 Influence of castration and estrogen replacement on sexual behavior of female-oriented, male-oriented, and asexual rams. Journal of Animal Science 78 1947–1953.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Resko JA, Ploem JG & Stadelman HL 1975 Estrogens in fetal and maternal plasma of the rhesus monkey. Endocrinology 97 425–430.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Resko JA, Perkins A, Roselli CE, Fitzgerald JA, Choate JVA & Stormshak F 1996 Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams. Biology of Reproduction 55 120–126.[Abstract]

Riggs BL & Malven PV 1974 Spontaneous patterns of LH release in castrate male sheep and the effects of exogenous estradiol. Journal of Animal Science 38 1239–1244.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Roselli CE, Larkin K, Resko JA, Stellflug JN & Stormshak F 2004 The volume of a sexually dimorphic nucleus in the ovine medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus varies with sexual partner preference. Endocrinology 145 478–483.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Roselli CE, Schrunk JM, Stadelman HL, Resko JA & Stormshak F 2006 The effect of aromatase inhibition on the sexual differentiation of the sheep brain. Endocrine 29 501–512.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Schanbacher BD & Ford JJ 1976 Seasonal profiles of plasma luteinizing hormone, testosterone and estradiol in the ram. Endocrinology 99 752–757.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Schanbacher BD & Ford JJ 1977 Gonadotropin secretion in cryptorchid and castrate rams and the acute effects of endogenous steroid treatment. Endocrinology 100 387–393.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Schanbacher BD, Winters SJ, Rehm T & D'Occhio M 1984 Pituitary androgen receptors and the resistance of long-term castrated rams to the androgenic control of luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry 20 1227–1232.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

Stellflug JN & Berardinelli JG 2002 Ram mating behavior after long-term selection for reproductive rate in Rambouillet ewes. Journal of Animal Science 80 2588–2593.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tilbrook AJ & Clarke IJ 1995 Negative feedback regulation of the secretion and actions of GnRH in male ruminants. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility Supplement 49 297–306.

Tilbrook AJ & Clarke IJ 2001 Negative feedback regulation of the secretion and actions of gonadotropin releasing hormone in males. Biology of Reproduction 64 735–742.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Tilbrook AJ, de Kretser DM, Cummins JT & Clarke IJ 1991 The negative feedback effects of testicular steroids are predominantly at the hypothalamus in the ram. Endocrinology 129 3080–3092.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wallen K & Baum MJ 2002 Masculinization and defeminization in altricial and precocial mammals: comparative aspects of steroid hormone action. In Hormones, Brain and Behavior, Vol 4. pp 385–423. Eds DW Pfaff, AP Arnold, AM Etgen, SE Fahrbach & RT Rubib RT. San Diego, US: Elsevier Science.

Wood RI & Foster DL 1998 Sexual differentiation of reproductive neuroendocrine function in sheep. Reviews of Reproduction 3 130–140.[Abstract]



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
135/5/733    most recent
REP-07-0505v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
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
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stormshak, F
Right arrow Articles by Roselli, C E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stormshak, F
Right arrow Articles by Roselli, C E

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS