Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 757

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methods for quantifying follicular numbers within the mouse ovary

Open access
Myers, M, Britt, K L, Wreford, N G M, Ebling, F J P, Kerr, J B·2004·Reproduction

Abstract

Accurate estimation of the number of ovarian follicles at various stages of development is an important indicator of the process of folliculogenesis in relation to the endocrine signals and paracrine/autocrine mechanisms that control the growth and maturation of the oocytes and their supporting follicular cells. There are 10-fold or greater differences in follicular numbers per ovary at similar ages and/or strains reported in earlier studies using various methods, leading to difficulties with interpretation of ovarian function in control vs experimental conditions. This study describes unbiased, assumption-free stereological methods for quantification of early and growing follicular numbers in the mouse ovary. A fractionator approach was used to sample a defined fraction of histological sections of adult wild-type ovaries. Primordial and primary follicles were counted independently with the optical and physical disector methods. The fractionator/disector methods, which are independent of follicular size or shape, gave estimations of 1930 ± 286 (S.E.M.) and 2227 ± 101 primordial follicles, and 137 ± 25 and 265 ± 32 primary follicles per ovary at 70 and 100 days of age respectively. From exact counts on serial sections, secondary and later follicular numbers at 100 days of age were estimated at 135 per ovary. Remnants of zona pellucidae (a marker of previous follicular atresia) were estimated using a fractionator/physical disector approach and were approximately 500 per ovary. The application of the quantitative methods described will facilitate an improved understanding of follicular dynamics and the factors that mediate their growth and maturation and allow for a better comparison between different studies.

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.1.00095

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 757

Metadata

Authors
Myers, M., Britt, K. L., Wreford, N. G. M., Ebling, F. J. P., & Kerr, J. B.
Venue
Reproduction
Published
2004-05-01
Volume
127
Issue
5
Pages
569-580
ISSN
  • 1470-1626 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-7899
OpenAlex
W2161437953
Cited by
757
References
4
FWCI
7.34
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: Methods for quantifying follicular numbers within the mouse ovary. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1530/rep.1.00095
The paper
Myers, M., Britt, K. L., Wreford, N. G. M., Ebling, F. J. P., & Kerr, J. B. (2004). Methods for quantifying follicular numbers within the mouse ovary. Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1530/rep.1.00095

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.