The uterus and unilateral regression of corpora lutea in the pig

Anderson, L. L.; Rp, Rathmacher; Rm, Melampy

doi:10.1152/ajplegacy.1966.210.3.611

Cited by 34 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present experiments show conclusively that the effect of the embryo in maintaining the life-span of the corpus luteum during early pregnancy is also local in nature. This conclusion is similar to that drawn from the results of experiments involving unilateral pregnancies in the pig (Du Buisson, 1961;Anderson, Ratchmacher & Melampy, 1966).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Local Maintenance of the Corpus Luteum in Sheep With Embryos Transferred to Various Isolated Portions of the Uterus

Moor¹,

Rowson²

1966

Reproduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between the embryo and the corpus luteum was investigated by transferring embryos to various isolated portions of the uteri of 115 non-pregnant recipient ewes allocated to four experiments.Embryos transferred to sheep with intact uteri (Experiment 1) were shown to be capable of maintaining the corpus luteum irrespective of whether they were transferred to the uterine horn adjacent to the corpus luteum (ipsilateral horn) or to the horn on the opposite side of the corpus luteum (contralateral horn.)Embryos transferred to sheep with one surgically isolated uterine horn (Experiment 2) maintained luteal function only in the ovary adjacent to the gravid horn. Thus, embryos placed in the isolated ipsilateral uterine horn maintained luteal function in 80% of the recipients, while embryos transferred to the isolated contralateral horn had no effect on the life-span of the corpus luteum. However, if the ipsilateral horn was removed, embryos transferred to the contralateral horn regularly maintained the life-span of the corpus luteum during pregnancy.Embryos transferred to one isolated horn of recipient ewes that had corpora lutea in both ovaries (Experiment 3) further confirmed the existence of a local unilateral relationship between the embryo and the corpus luteum: since only the corpora lutea adjacent to the gravid horn were maintained. Embryos transferred to the isolated ovarian half of the ipsilateral horn (Experiment 4) maintained luteal function in 30% of the recipients. Embryos placed in the isolated cervical half of the ipsilateral horn or in the ovarian half of the contralateral horn did not prevent regression of the corpus luteum at the 15th day.These results are interpreted to signify that the embryo overcomes the lytic effect of the uterus in a local manner. It would appear that the * Postal address: Animal Research Station, 307 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge. 539 540 R. M. Moor and L. E. A. Rowsonlife-span of corpora lutea in sheep with ligated uteri is primarily regulated by the relative position of the lytic non-gravid horn and the corpus luteum, and not by the position of the pregnant horn as such.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Local Maintenance of the Corpus Luteum in Sheep With Embryos Transferred to Various Isolated Portions of the Uterus

Moor¹,

Rowson²

1966

Reproduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our results indicate that the sterile horn exerts no luteolytic action during unilateral pregnancy in the rat. These findings are in marked contrast to those of experimental studies in swine, which have shown that unilateral pregnancy cannot be maintained in that species unless the sterile horn is removed (Du Mesnil du Buisson, 1961;Anderson, Rathmacher & Melampy, 1966). In the rat, one must conclude that either no luteolysin is produced by the sterile horn or else that its action is overridden by the placental luteotrophic stimulus.…”

contrasting

confidence: 82%

Maintenance of Luteal Function During Unilateral Pregnancy in the Rat

Strauss¹,

Lindner²

1969

Reproduction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In previous studies considered by du Mesnil du Buisson (1961), Anderson, Rathmacher & Melampy (1966), Niswender, Dziuk, Kaltenbach & Norton D. E. Longenecker and . JV.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%