2002
DOI: 10.1159/000047195
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Development of a Circadian Pattern of Salivary Cortisol Secretion in the Neonatal Piglet

Abstract: Saliva was collected from neonatal piglets in order to assess the secretory dynamics of cortisol in the newborn piglet. Saliva was collected from two litters of piglets (n = 16) from multiparous sows at 07.00, 11.00, 15.00 and 19.00 h on days 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 14, 18, 22, 26 and 30 post partum. Salivary cortisol concentration was determined by radioimmunoassay. Salivary cortisol concentration was high perinatally and declined with age. The frequency of escape attempts and vocalisation intensity during collect… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
19
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
19
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For the present investigation, this argument is likely only true for that the pain of C piglets is possibly underestimated. Circadian changes in cortisol was unlikely to have affected the cortisol responses of piglets in the present study as male piglets display such a pattern only from day 10 of life (Gallagher et al, 2002). Furthermore, in order to eliminate the possibility of minor stressors or environmental factors influencing the cortisol rise, all procedures were done both with and without pain medication in the present study, thus permitting us to discern a pain-associated response.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the present investigation, this argument is likely only true for that the pain of C piglets is possibly underestimated. Circadian changes in cortisol was unlikely to have affected the cortisol responses of piglets in the present study as male piglets display such a pattern only from day 10 of life (Gallagher et al, 2002). Furthermore, in order to eliminate the possibility of minor stressors or environmental factors influencing the cortisol rise, all procedures were done both with and without pain medication in the present study, thus permitting us to discern a pain-associated response.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gallagher et al (2002) reported a distinctive pattern at 6 to 10 days upon CV-based analysis, whereas cosinor rhythms have emerged between 8 (Ekkel et al, 1996) and 20 weeks (Ruis et al, 1997). Results by De Jong et al (2000) indicate that one possible factor explaining these differences is housing: enriched-, but not barren-housed (difference in space and substrate from birth), animals had developed a clear rhythm at 22 weeks of age, as defined by significantly higher day-time group mean values.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Krieger et al (1971) characterized it by a decline of at least 25% comparing morning concentrations to all later values, whereas Santiago et al (1996) required a drop of at least three times the mean intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) from morning to both afternoon and night. The method described by Krieger et al (1971) was applied to pig data by Gallagher et al (2002). Others have based a normal rhythm on significantly higher morning than afternoon group-level mean values (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The discrepancy in the present study and that of Carroll (2001) may indicate potential differences in glucocorticoid sensitivity in male and female pigs. Gallagher et al (2002) reported differences in the development of a circadian pattern of salivary cortisol secretion between male and female neonatal pigs, with females establishing a circadian pattern by d 6, whereas males displayed a similar pattern from d 10 of birth. As with growth performance and carcass characteristics, glucocorticoid regulation and action are known to exhibit sexually dimorphic characteristics in several species (Vamvakopoulos, 1995;Tilbrook et al, 2000;Rhees et al, 2001).…”
Section: Defmentioning
confidence: 99%