Four studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of several physiologic and pharmacologic agents on serum prolactin concentrations in the nonpregnant mare. An increase in prolactin measured in response to administration of thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH; 50 micrograms, iv) was found not to vary (P = .20) in mares in estrus compared with mares in diestrus (5 to 10 d post-ovulation). Administration in the dopamine receptor blocker, metoclopramide (25 or 100 mg, im), rapidly increased serum prolactin, and the response was dependent on dose administered (total prolactin measured for 420 min was 3,362.7 +/- 182.1 ng for 25 mg, and 4,485.7 +/- 212.6 ng for 100 mg administered im; P less than .05), but not on route of injection (3,026.3 +/- 492.3 ng prolactin with 25 mg, iv; P less than .05). Similarly, sulpiride, a D-2 dopamine receptor blocker, induced an increase in serum prolactin, which appeared to be maximal at a dose of 25 mg (6,556.3 +/- 636.9 ng prolactin/420 min compared with 6,594.5 +/- 169.3 ng prolactin/420 min with 100 mg sulpiride; P less than .10). Finally, bromocriptine, a dopamine agonist, decreased serum prolactin compared with vehicle-injected controls, but the inhibitory effect was found only when basal levels of serum prolactin were highest (in May). These data suggest that mechanisms controlling prolactin secretion in the mare are similar to those described in other mammalian species, and that the seasonal decline in serum prolactin is not the result of increased sensitivity to the proposed prolactin-inhibiting factor, dopamine.

No abstract

Qualitative Research in PsychologyPublicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ uqrp20 D iscla im e r : This is a version of an unedit ed m anuscript t hat has been accept ed for publicat ion. As a service t o aut hors and researchers we are providing t his version of t he accept ed m anuscript ( AM) . Copyedit ing, t ypeset t ing, and review of t he result ing proof will be undert aken on t his m anuscript before final publicat ion of t he Version of Record ( VoR) . During product ion and pre-press, errors m ay be discovered which could affect t he cont ent , and all legal disclaim ers t hat apply t o t he j ournal relat e t o t his version also. Qualitative Undergraduate Proj ect Supervision in PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLETaylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he " Cont ent " ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . The dissertation is a core component of a psychology undergraduate degree, though very little research has been conducted into supervision processes at undergraduate level. This study examined the accounts of supervisors of qualitative dissertations, in order to identify current practices of supervision and possible resources that might support supervision. Seventeen supervisors from psychology departments in North East England and Scotland were interviewed and three main themes were identified using thematic analysis: the quantitative culture in psychology teaching, supervisors' expertise, and the supervision process. Supervisors noted that students were typically constrained in their choice of methodology due to limited qualitative methods teaching, lack of training and guidance for supervisors, and concerns about the risks of In spite of this, there are relatively few guidelines for supervising qualitative dissertations and little is known about the supervision process itself.Central to students' perceived satisfaction during dissertation work is their relationship with, and confidence in, their dissertation supervisor (Calvert & Casey, 2004; Todd, Smith & Bannister, 2006). This confidence relies on the supervisor being proficient not only in the chosen research topic or methodology, but also in their capabilities as a supervisor. The practicalities of supervising dissertations can therefore be a source of stress and anxiety (for both students and supervisors), particularly as there is little formal training in supervision (Todd et al., 2006). As the supervisory process in psychology is not routinely scrutinized in professional body accreditation, QAA reviews or in standard peer observation practices, its characterisation as an opaque process is not surprising (Rowley & Slack, 2004). The changing role and nature of the dissertation in honours degrees -including the greater diversity of research methods from which students can choose -also increases the need to review and develop the supervisor role (Rowley In attending to this issue, th...

Abstract. The Global Ocean Data Analysis Project (GLODAP) is a synthesis effort providing regular compilations of surface to bottom ocean biogeochemical data, with an emphasis on seawater inorganic carbon 40 chemistry and related variables determined through chemical analysis of water samples. This update of GLODAPv2, v2.2019, adds data from 116 cruises to the previous version, extending its coverage in time from 2013 to 2017 while also adding some data from prior years. GLODAPv2.2019 includes measurements from more than 1.1 million water samples from the global oceans collected on 840 cruises. The data for the 12 GLODAP core variables (salinity, oxygen, nitrate, silicate, phosphate, dissolved inorganic carbon, total alkalinity, pH, CFC-11, CFC-12, CFC-113, and CCl4) have been subjected to extensive quality control, especially systematic evaluation of bias. The data are available in two formats: (i) as submitted by the data originator but updated to WOCE exchange format and (ii) as a merged data product with adjustments applied to minimize bias. These adjustments were derived by comparing the data from the 116 new cruises with the data from the 724 quality-controlled cruises of the GLODAPv2 data product. They correct for errors related to measurement, calibration, and data handling practices, taking into account any known or likely time trends or variations. The compiled and adjusted data product is believed to be consistent to better that 0.005 in salinity, 1 % in oxygen, 2 % in nitrate, 2 % in silicate, 2 % in phosphate, 4 μmol kg−1 in dissolved inorganic carbon, 4 μmol kg−1 in total alkalinity, 0.01 in pH, and 5 % in the halogenated transient tracers. The compilation also includes data for several other variables, such as isotopic tracers. These were not subjected to bias comparison or adjustments. The original data, their documentation and doi codes are available at the Ocean Carbon Data System of NOAA/NCEI (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ocads/oceans/GLODAPv2_2019/). This site also provides access to the merged data product, which is provided as a single global file or as four regional ones – the Arctic, Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans – under the doi: https://doi.org/10.25921/xnme-wr20 (Olsen et al., 2019). The product files also include significant ancillary and approximated data. These were obtained by interpolation of, or calculation from, measured data. This paper documents the GLODAPv2.2019 methods and provides a broad overview of the secondary quality control results.

Studies were conducted to compare continuous vs pulsatile i.v. infusion of GnRH on serum gonadotropin concentrations and ovulation in seasonally anestrous mares and in cycling mares. Anestrous mares (Exp. 1) received no treatment (control; n = 3), 2, or 20 micrograms of GnRH/h continuous infusion (CI) (n = 4 and n = 6, respectively), or 20 micrograms of GnRH/h pulsatile infusion (PI) (n = 5). After initiation of GnRH infusion, serum LH levels increased earlier, and to a greater extent, in the PI group than in other groups (P less than .05). In contrast, serum FSH concentrations did not differ among groups. The number of days to development of the first 35-mm follicle was not different among GnRH treatment groups; however, mares receiving PI ovulated on d 9.4 of treatment, 2.8 d earlier than those receiving 20 micrograms of GnRH/h CI (P less than .05). Mares given 2 micrograms of GnRH/h CI failed to ovulate spontaneously after 16 d of treatment, but each one ovulated within 2 to 4 d after injection of 2,000 IU of hCG on d 16. Control mares did not ovulate or show any significant follicular development throughout the experiment. Cycling mares (Exp. 2) received no treatment (control; n = 6), 20 micrograms of GnRH/h CI, or 20 micrograms of GnRH/h PI (n = 4) beginning on d 16 of an estrous cycle (d 0 = day of ovulation). Serum LH concentrations in all groups increased after initiation of treatment; however, on the day of ovulation LH concentrations were lower in the CI group than in the PI or control groups (P less than .05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)