Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 586

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Influence of uterine bacterial contamination after parturition on ovarian dominant follicle selection and follicle growth and function in cattle

Open access
Sheldon, I M, Noakes, D E, Rycroft, A N, Pfeiffer, D U, Dobson, H·2002·Reproduction

Abstract

First postpartum dominant follicles are preferentially selected in the ovary contralateral to the previously gravid uterine horn. The aim of the present study was to test the hypothesis that uterine bacterial contamination alters the location of ovarian follicle emergence and selection, and inhibits follicle growth and function. Swabs were collected from the uterine body lumen of cattle on days 7, 14, 21 and 28 after parturition. Bacteria were identified by aerobic and anaerobic culture; bacterial growth was scored semiquantitatively and animals were categorized into standard or high bacterial contamination categories on the basis of the number of colonies detected. Follicular growth and function were monitored by daily transrectal ultrasonography, and estimation of plasma FSH, oestradiol and progesterone concentrations. There was no effect of bacterial contamination on plasma FSH concentration profiles or emergence of the ovarian follicle wave. When uterine bacterial growth scores were high on day 7 or day 21 after parturition, fewer first (1/20 versus 15/50; P < 0.05) or second (1/11 versus 13/32; P < 0.05) dominant follicles were selected in the ipsilateral compared with the contralateral ovary, respectively. The diameter of the first dominant follicle was smaller in animals with a high day 7 bacterial score (P < 0.001), dominant follicle growth was slower (P < 0.05) and oestradiol secretion was decreased (P < 0.05). The present study provides evidence for an effect of the uterus on the ovary after parturition, whereby uterine bacteria have a contemporaneous localized effect on ovarian follicle selection and subsequent growth and function, but not on initial emergence.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1530/rep.0.1230837

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 586

Metadata

Authors
Sheldon, I. M., Noakes, D. E., Rycroft, A. N., Pfeiffer, D. U., & Dobson, H.
Venue
Reproduction
Published
2002-06-01
Volume
123
Issue
6
Pages
837-845
ISSN
  • 1470-1626 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-7899
OpenAlex
W2127625228
Cited by
586
References
0
FWCI
17.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Influence of uterine bacterial contamination after parturition on ovarian dominant follicle selection and follicle growth and function in cattle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1530/rep.0.1230837
The paper
Sheldon, I. M., Noakes, D. E., Rycroft, A. N., Pfeiffer, D. U., & Dobson, H. (2002). Influence of uterine bacterial contamination after parturition on ovarian dominant follicle selection and follicle growth and function in cattle. Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.0.1230837

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.