McLeod B J, Craigon J
J Reprod Fertil. 1985 Jul;74(2):575-87. doi: 10.1530/jrf.0.0740575.
Time series analysis was used to detect LH and FSH episodes in untreated seasonally anoestrous ewes and prepubertal heifers, and in these animals when treated with low doses of GnRH. For comparison, these profiles were also assessed for episodic secretion by subjective, visual appraisal methods and by cycle detection-an objective threshold method. In untreated animals, time series analysis detected recurring events in the LH and FSH profiles, the period lengths of which varied between individual animals. When GnRH was injected at 2-h intervals, cycles in LH secretion with period lengths of 120 min were recorded in all animals, of 60 min in all ewes and 11/12 heifers, and of 40.5 min in 22/24 ewes and 10/12 heifers. The cycles with period lengths of 60 and 40.5 min are probably artefacts of this method of analysis. No consistent cycles in FSH release were detected in GnRH-injected anoestrous ewes, but 120-min cycles were recorded in 8/12 GnRH-injected heifers. When GnRH was administered to seasonally anoestrous ewes by continuous infusion, recurring cycles in both LH and FSH secretion were evident. However, there was no consistency in their period lengths and the mean number and frequency of cycles were similar to pretreatment values. The number of episodes detected by visual appraisal was influenced by the choice of episode definition. Both methods identified LH, but not FSH, episodes in response to each injection in all GnRH-injected animals. Cycle detection, which does not identify individual episodes, recorded LH and FSH episode frequencies similar to those detected by the more stringent method of visual appraisal. Time series analysis detected an FSH response to GnRH injections in prepubertal heifers that was not identified by the other methods of analysis. However, because of the asymmetric nature of LH episodes, it also detected cycles in LH profiles that were probably spurious. Subjective decisions influenced the frequencies of LH and FSH episodes recorded by visual appraisal, and the variation in episode amplitude in these profiles made cycle detection inappropriate. Each of these methods can contribute to the interpretation of hormone profiles, but their constraints and limitations must be recognized.
时间序列分析用于检测未经处理的季节性乏情母羊和青春期前小母牛以及用低剂量促性腺激素释放激素（GnRH）处理的这些动物体内促黄体生成素（LH）和促卵泡生成素（FSH）的脉冲。为作比较，还通过主观视觉评估方法和周期检测（一种客观阈值方法）对这些激素谱的脉冲式分泌进行了评估。在未经处理的动物中，时间序列分析检测到LH和FSH谱中的反复出现事件，其周期长度在个体动物之间有所不同。当每隔2小时注射GnRH时，所有动物均记录到周期长度为120分钟的LH分泌周期，所有母羊和11/12的小母牛记录到周期长度为60分钟的周期，22/24的母羊和10/12的小母牛记录到周期长度为40.5分钟的周期。周期长度为60分钟和40.5分钟的周期可能是这种分析方法的人为产物。在注射GnRH的乏情母羊中未检测到FSH释放的一致周期，但在8/12注射GnRH的小母牛中记录到120分钟的周期。当通过连续输注向季节性乏情母羊施用GnRH时，LH和FSH分泌中反复出现的周期都很明显。然而，它们的周期长度没有一致性，且周期的平均数量和频率与预处理值相似。视觉评估检测到的脉冲数量受脉冲定义选择的影响。两种方法在所有注射GnRH的动物中均识别出对每次注射有反应的LH脉冲，但未识别出FSH脉冲。不识别单个脉冲的周期检测记录的LH和FSH脉冲频率与更严格的视觉评估方法检测到的频率相似。时间序列分析检测到青春期前小母牛对GnRH注射有FSH反应，而其他分析方法未识别出该反应。然而，由于LH脉冲的不对称性质，它还检测到LH谱中可能是虚假的周期。主观判断影响了视觉评估记录的LH和FSH脉冲频率，且这些谱中脉冲幅度的变化使得周期检测不合适。这些方法中的每一种都有助于对激素谱的解释，但必须认识到它们的局限性。
