ROLE OF KISSPEPTIN AS A SUBSTITUTE OF GnRH IN OVSYNCH PROTOCOL IN EWES
Loading...
Date
2019-02-18
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
pvnrtvu
Abstract
The aim of the present study “The role of kisspeptin as a substitute of GnRH in
Ovsynch protocol in ewes” was conducted on 18 healthy and non-pregnant ewes to
study the fertility parameters upto conception and FSH and LH levels in serum during
synchronisation protocol. The selected 18 ewes were randomly divided into 3 groups
containing 6 each. In GnRH group all the ewes were administered with 1ml of
Receptal@ VET ( each ml contains 0.0042mg Buserelin acetate 0.0042 mg equivalent to
0.004 mg buserelin) intramuscularly on 0 and 9th day. On 7th day of the protocol
Vetmate about 125 μg (Each ml contains Cloprostenol (Synthetic Prostaglandin F2α)
250 μg / ml) was administered intramuscularly to all the ewes. In kisspeptin group all
the ewes were administered with 10μg of kisspeptin per kg body weight intravenously
on 0 and 9th day. On 7th day of the protocol Vetmate about 125 μg (Each ml contains
Cloprostenol (Synthetic Prostaglandin F2α) 250 μg / ml) was administered
intramuscularly to all the ewes. In control group all the ewes were administered with
about 5ml of normal saline intravenously on 0, 7, 9th day. About 4ml of blood was
collected from all the ewes in GnRH, kisspeptin and control groups on 0 and 9th day 30
minutes before and 30 minutes after injection of receptal, kisspeptin and normal saline
in GnRH, kisspeptin and control groups respectively.
The estrous response rate was 100%, 66.67% and 16.67% respectively in GnRH,
kisspeptin and control groups. The statistical analysis showed a significant difference
(p≤0.05) in between the groups. The estrous response rate was higher in treatment
groups compared to control groups. The estrous length (hours) in GnRH, kisspeptin and
control groups was 18.00 ± 2.19, 11.66 ± 4.11 and 2.00 ± 2.00 respectively. The estrous
length statistically differed (p≤0.05) in treatment groups compared to control groups.
Conception rate was 83.33%, 50% and 16.67% in GnRH, kisspeptin and control groups
respectively. A significant difference was observed in between the groups. The
conception rate was better in GnRH group and kisspeptin group than control group.
The follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels in serum in GnRH group on 0 day
before injection of receptal was 0.39 ± 0.04 ng/ml and after injection was 1.56 ± 0.18
ng/ml. On 9th day the FSH levels in GnRH group before injection of receptal was 0.5 ±
0.05 ng/ml and after injection was 2.41 ± 0.31 ng/ml. The FSH levels in kisspeptin
group before injection of kisspeptin on 0 day was 0.3 ± 0.06 ng/ml. FSH levels in serum
after injection of kisspeptin on 0 day was 0.93 ± 0.29 ng/ml. The FSH levels on 9th day
before injection of kisspeptin was 0.38 ± 0.05 ng/ml. FSH levels in serum after injection
of kisspeptin on 9th day was 1.39 ± 0.37 ng/ml. In control group the FSH levels
remained almost same on 0 and 9th day of the protocol. The mean FSH levels were
significantly higher in GnRH group compared to other groups. There was a significant
difference (p≤0.05) in the FSH levels in serum between the groups.
The leutinising hormone (LH) levels in serum in GnRH group on 0 day before
injection of receptal was 0.18 ± 0.02 ng/ml. LH levels after injection of receptal was
0.72 ± 0.06 ng/ml. On 9th day the LH levels in serum before injection of receptal was
0.3 ± 0.04 ng/ml and after injection the levels of LH was 0.68 ± 0.06 ng/ml. The LH
levels in kisspeptin group on 0 day before injection of kisspeptin was 0.23 ± 0.03 ng/ml
and after injection of kisspeptin was 1.37 ± 0.39 ng/ml. On 9th day the LH levels before
injection of kisspeptin was 0.40 ± 0.04 ng/ml and after injection the levels of LH was
1.86 ± 0.33 ng/ml. In control group the levels of LH were almost similar on all days.
Comparatively there existed a significant difference (p≤0.05) in the mean LH levels in
between the groups.
In conclusion the treatment with Kisspeptin was better when compared with
control group but less response was observed when compared with GnRH group
Description
Keywords
null