Variation in the Extraction Efficiency of Estradiol and Progesterone in Moist and Lyophilized Feces of the Black Howler Monkey (Alouatta pigra): Alternative Methods
Vianey del R. Torres-Pelayo, M. J. Rovirosa-Hernández, F. García-Orduña, R. D. Chavira-Ramírez, L. Boeck, D. Canales-Espinosa, J. F. Rodríguez-Landa
Abstract
Several fecal steroid extraction techniques have been developed to measure the ovary function in different species of mammals. However, regardless of the method of extraction and the sample type chosen, it has been observed that they can yield results with different percentages of recuperation. The objective of this study was to determine whether the type of substratum, solvent and extraction method used have any influence on the extraction efficiency in the feces of Alouatta pigra (black howler monkey). For this purpose we used two methods: agitation and ebullition. With each method, we utilized moist and lyophilized feces. The validation of radioimmunoassay method was accurate and precise for quantify estradiol and progesterone in lyophilized feces of A. pigra. To both of which ethanol and methanol, absolute and at 80%, were added, besides the hormones (125)I-Estradiol and (125)I-Progesterone. The extraction efficiency for (125)I-Estradiol was from 87.72 ± 3.97 to 41.24 ± 2.67%, and for (125)I-Progesterone from 71.15 ± 4.24 to 42.30 ± 1.19% when we used the agitation method. Whereas with the ebullition method, the extraction efficiency for (125)I-Estradiol ranged from 86.89 ± 2.66 to 71.68 ± 3.02% and for (125)I-Progesterone from 98.31 ± 1.26 to 85.40 ± 1.98%. Due to the differences found in these assays, which depend on the method used, the type of feces employed and the type of solvent added to them, we recommend the ebullition method and the lyophilized feces of A. pigra for extracting the hormones, since in moist feces there may exist variables which might interfere in the quantification of (125)I-Estradiol and (125)I-Progesterone.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2011.
All research outputs
#20,165,369
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,270
of 13,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,848
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#34
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
