1986
DOI: 10.1007/bf00612490
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evidence for differences in the circadian organization of hamsters exposed to short day photoperiod

Abstract: Djungarian hamsters, Phodopus sungorus, depend mainly on day length to cue seasonal adjustments in reproduction and thermoregulation. These photoperiod-induced changes are mediated by changes in the daily release of pineal melatonin. However, some hamsters fail to respond to chronic short day exposure, and these individuals lack typical short day rhythms for both daily activity and pineal melatonin content. These results indicate that nonresponding hamsters lack the circadian organization responsible for prope… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
75
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 101 publications
(77 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
75
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Twenty percent of hamsters adapted to SP (N=10) were considered reproductively non-responsive to photoperiod because testes mass was greater than 2 standard deviations below the average paired testes mass of hamsters exposed to LP. This value ranges between 15 and 30% in previous studies (Puchalski and Lynch, 1986;Nelson, 1987) and probably reflects the current genetic make-up of our colony. These non-responding hamsters were removed from the study.…”
Section: Materials and Methods Animalsmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…Twenty percent of hamsters adapted to SP (N=10) were considered reproductively non-responsive to photoperiod because testes mass was greater than 2 standard deviations below the average paired testes mass of hamsters exposed to LP. This value ranges between 15 and 30% in previous studies (Puchalski and Lynch, 1986;Nelson, 1987) and probably reflects the current genetic make-up of our colony. These non-responding hamsters were removed from the study.…”
Section: Materials and Methods Animalsmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…they do not display gonadal regression or reductions in body mass and fat stores). These individuals are referred to as photoperiodic non-responders (Puchalski and Lynch, 1986). Because we wanted to directly match body mass loss of the SD-AL and LD-FR groups, we needed to exclude the photoperiodic non-responders from our calculations of the SD-AL body mass loss trajectory (Mauer and Bartness, 1997).…”
Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of mammalian species exhibit variation in reproductive responsiveness to photoperiod, including Siberian hamster (P. sungorus) [27, 28], deer mice (P. maniculatus) [29], meadow voles (M. pennsylvanicus) [21, 30], and white-footed mice (P. leucopus) [31]. Given the variable nature of photoperiodic effects on the GnRH system in hamsters and other rodents, it is surprising that most studies fail to address this variation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%