347 COULD THE DIFFERENTIAL EXPRESSION OF LUTEINIZING HORMONE RECEPTOR ISOFORMS EXPLAIN THE VARIABILITY IN SUPEROVULATORY RESPONSES IN CATTLE?

Abstract

Embryo production in vivo is highly variable among donors. The Gir breed (Bos indicus) is well known to show a low embryo production after superovulation (2.5 to 3.5 viable embryos per flush), and a high variance in superovulatory responses, which makes this breed an interesting model to study this trait. The aim of this study was to evaluate the expression pattern of LHR isoforms in Gir heifers previously characterised as good (10.3 ± 1.2 embryos/flush, N = 5) or poor (1.1 ± 0.3 embryos/flush, N = 5) responders to superovulation protocols. In both groups, an adapted ultrasound-guided follicular aspiration system (Arashiro et al. 2012 Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 24, 175) was used to collect granulosa cells (GC) from 8-mm follicles growing in either a synchronized but not stimulated follicular wave (FW) or in the fourth day of superovulation (SOV), induced with 200 UI of FSHp (Pluset, Serono). The recovered follicular fluid was centrifuged and the cells were washed with NaCl 0.9% saline and kept in RNA Later (Ambion, Austin, TX, USA). Total RNA extraction was performed using the commercial RNeasy Micro Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA). The RNA samples were quantified and reverse transcribed using the commercial Superscript III kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). Complementary DNA samples were amplified through real-time PCR, using a LH receptor primer – not selective for LHR isoforms (total LHR) – and 4 sets of isoform selective primers (S1, S10, S10+11, and S11). All samples were previously tested for theca cell contamination through detection of CYP17A1 gene, and those showing contamination were excluded. The β-actin gene was used as endogenous control. Analyses were performed using the REST software and the expression values are shown as mean ± s.e.m. For comparisons between good and poor responders, the first was set as 1.00. For comparisons between FW and SOV, FW was set as 1.00. In the good responder group, there was no difference (P > 0.05) in total LHR expression among GC samples from FW and SOV. However, the S10+11 isoform was down-regulated (0.4 ± 0.1; P < 0.01) after SOV. In the poor responders group, total LHR expression was down-regulated (0.2 ± 0.1; P < 0.01) after SOV, but there was no difference in the expression of isoforms (P > 0.05). Contrasting the response groups (good and poor), total LHR (15.1 ± 7.6; P < 0.001), and the isoforms S10 (5.7 ± 2.7; P < 0.01), S10+11 (1.9 ± 0.6; P < 0.01), and S11 (5.1 ± 2.5; P < 0.01) were up-regulated in FW of poor responders, but there was no difference (P > 0.05) in any LHR form during SOV. We concluded that 1) LHR expression is different between heifers characterised as good or poor responders to superovulation; 2) superovulation modulates the LHR expression and reduces the original differences observed in unstimulated cycles; 3) diminished expression of total LHR, but not in the isoforms, in poor responders heifers could suggest a reduction in the expression of full-length LHR, with possible consequences to ovulatory capability after superovulation.

Financial support was provided by CNPq Project 477701 and Fapemig PPM 0067/11.