Biol Reprod Lalor Postdoctoral Fellowships -- Application Deadline January 15, 2009
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by TUREK, F. W.
Right arrow Articles by MENAKER, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by TUREK, F. W.
Right arrow Articles by MENAKER, M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by TUREK, F. W.
Right arrow Articles by MENAKER, M.

Biology of Reproduction, Vol 15, 94-97, Copyright © 1976 by Society for the Study of Reproduction

Differential Effects of Melatonin on the Testes of Photoperiodic and Nonphotoperiodic Rodents

FRED W. TUREK 1, CLAUDE DESJARDINS 1, , and MICHAEL MENAKER 1

1 Institute of Reproductive Biology, Department of Zoology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712


Administration of melatonin via subcutaneous Silastic capsules caused a marked reduction in testicular weight, and suppressed spermatogenesis in two species of photoperiodic rodents: golden hamsters and grasshopper mice. In marked contrast, melatonin failed to exert any demonstrable effect on testis weight or spermatogenesis in two species of nonphotoperiodic rodents: laboratory rats and house mice. These findings suggest that melatonin, and by implication the pineal gland, may play a more importent role in regulating testicular function of rodents whose reproductive activity is markedly dependent upon seasonal changes in day length than of rodents whose reproductive performance is relatively insensitive to photoperiodic cues.

Note:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr. Richard McCarty, Department of Pathology, School of Hygiene and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, for furnishing the grasshopper mice. The authors are indebted to Donald W. Carroll for expert assistance provided throughout the course of this project. This investigation was supported by a U.S. Public Health Service Program Project Grant HD-03803, and a Research Training Grant HD-00268 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Submitted on January 20, 1976
Accepted on March 29, 1976




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
G. E. Demas, V. Chefer, M. I. Talan, and R. J. Nelson
Metabolic costs of mounting an antigen-stimulated immune response in adult and aged C57BL/6J mice
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, November 1, 1997; 273(5): R1631 - R1637.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Biol RhythmsHome page
H. Underwood and B. D. Goldman
Vertebrate Circadian and Photoperiodic Systems: Role of the Pineal Gland and Melatonin
J Biol Rhythms, December 1, 1987; 2(4): 279 - 315.
[PDF]

Home page
 ScienceHome page
E. Bittman
Hamster refractoriness: the role of insensitivity of pineal target tissues
Science, November 10, 1978; 202(4368): 648 - 650.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1976 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction.