Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T17:16:13.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of growth hormone on wool follicles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. M. Labban
F. M. Labban
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge, and Animal Production Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Cairo, Egypt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Five pairs of Suffolk twin lambs were used and one of each pair was injected twice daily with 2 mg. of a growth hormone preparation for 2 weeks.

2. Treatment was begun when they were between 3 and 4 weeks old, the total number of follicles in the Suffolk not being complete until 6 weeks old. Skin samples were taken at the beginning and end of the experiment.

3. It was found that in 0·25 sq. cm. of skin the total number of primary follicles was reduced from the beginning to end of the experiment in both control and treated groups, probably because of the expansion of skin area during that time. While the total number of secondary, ‘news’ and ‘plug’ follicles was also reduced in the control group, they were increased in the treated group.

4. Since the secondary to primary follicle ratio was 5·3:1 for the treated group as compared with 4·5:1 for the controls it is concluded that growth hormone increases the number of secondary follicles which develop during the early weeks of postnatal life.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , May 1957 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, B. L., Ingle, D. J., Li, C. H. & Evans, H. M. (1948). Anat. Rec. 102, 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, M. (1949). J. Agric. Sci. 39, 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, M. (1954). J. Agric. Sci. 44, 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, M. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, H. B. (1943). Bull. Coun. Sci. Indust. Res. Aust. no. 164.Google Scholar
Downs, W. G. Jr. (1930). J. Dent. Res. 10, 601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dry, F. W. (1934). N. Z. J. Agric. 48, 331.Google Scholar
Evans, H. M., Meyer, K., Simpson, M. E. & Reichert, F. L. (1933). Mem. Univ. Calif. 11, 425.Google Scholar
Ferguson, K. A. (1951). Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Folley, S. J. & Young, F. G. (1945). J. Endocrin. 4, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. S. (1951). Nature, Lond., 167, 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaebler, O. H. (1933). J. Biol. Chem. 100, xlvi.Google Scholar
Henderson, A. E. (1953). J. Agric. Sci. 43, 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hevesy, G. (1945). Rev. Modern Physics, 17, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. O., & Schaffer, N. K. (1934). J. Nutr. 7, 337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, M. O. & Freeman, W. (1940). Endocrinology, 26, 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. H. & Evans, H. M. (1947). Vitam. & Horm. 5, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. H. & Geshwind, I. (1947). Cited by Li C. H. & Evans H. M. (1948).Google Scholar
Moon, H. D. (1937). Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol., N.Y., 37, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, T. J., Benedict, E. B. & Teel, H. M. (1929). Arch. Surg., Chicago, 18, 1708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayers, G. (1949). J. Clin Endocrin. 9, 656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, H. L. & Summers, W. K. (1949). Quart. J. Med. 18, 319.Google Scholar
Snow, J. S. & Whitehead, R. W. (1935). Endocrinology, 19, 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildman, A. B. (1932). Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. part 2, 257.Google Scholar
Wildman, A. B. (1954). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Wilhelmi, A. E., Fishman, J. B. & Russell, J. A. (1948). J. Biol. Chem. 176, 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar