Recent Progress in Hormone Research, 41, 473-531, 1985
Abstract not indexed. Read at publisher
Topics
GnRH secretion physiology men women, gonadotropin releasing hormone pulsatile secretion, Crowley Filicori GnRH pulsatility, GnRH pulse frequency reproductive endocrinology, hypothalamic GnRH regulation gonadotropins, neuroendocrine control LH FSH secretion, GnRH pulse generator physiology, Spratt Santoro gonadotropin releasing hormone, sex differences GnRH secretion patterns, hypothalamic pituitary gonadal axis regulation
PMID 3931190 3931190 DOI 10.1016/b978-0-12-571141-8.50015-9 10.1016/b978-0-12-571141-8.50015-9
Cite this article
Crowley WF Jr, Filicori, M., Spratt, D. I., & Santoro, N. F. (1985). The physiology of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion in men and women. Recent Progress in Hormone Research, 41, 473-531. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-571141-8.50015-9
Crowley WF Jr, Filicori M, Spratt DI, Santoro NF. The physiology of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion in men and women. Recent Prog Horm Res. 1985;41:473-531. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-571141-8.50015-9
Crowley WF Jr, et al. "The physiology of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) secretion in men and women." Recent Progress in Hormone Research, vol. 41, 1985, pp. 473-531.
Keywords
Amenorrhea/metabolism, Female, Follicle Stimulating Hormone/metabolism, Humans, Hypogonadism/drug Therapy/metabolism, Luteinizing Hormone/metabolism, Male, Menstruation, Monitoring, Physiologic/methods, Ovulation, Pituitary Hormone-Releasing Hormones/metabolism/therapeutic Use, Pituitary Hormone-Releasing Hormones, Luteinizing Hormone, Follicle Stimulating Hormone
Related articles
NaProTECHNOLOGYMenstrual Cycle
Open Access
Does a short luteal phase correlate with an increased risk of miscarriage? A cohort study
Duane M et al., 2022·BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Miscarriage is defined as spontaneous loss of pregnancy prior to 20 weeks gestation. With an estimated risk of 15% of clinically confirmed pregnancies ending in miscarriage, it is the most common adverse event in pregnancy. Woman's age is the primary risk factor for miscarriage, while medical conditions, including hormonal abnormalities, are also associated. Progesterone is essential for maintaining pregnancy. A short luteal phase may reflect inadequate levels of progesterone production, but it is unclear whether a short luteal phase correlates with an increase in the risk of miscarriage. Using a cohort study design, we conducted a secondary data analysis from four cohorts of couples who used a standardized protocol to track biomarkers of the female cycles. A short luteal phase was defined as less than 10 days, with < 11, < 9, and < 8 days as alternate definitions in sensitivity analyses. We included women who experienced a pregnancy with a known outcome, identified the length of the luteal phase in up to 3 cycles prior to conception and assessed the relationship with miscarriage using a modified Poisson regression analysis, adjusting for demographic characteristics, smoking, alcohol use and previous pregnancy history. In our sample of 252 women; the overall miscarriage rate was 18.7%. The adjusted incident risk ratio of miscarriage in women who had at least one short luteal phase < 10 days, compared to those who had none, was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.80) Similar null risk was found when assessing alternative lengths of short luteal phase. Women who had short luteal phases < 10 days in all 3 cycles prior to the conception cycle had an incident risk ratio of 2.14 (95% CI: 0.7, 6.55). Our study found that a short luteal phase in the three cycles prior to conception was not associated with higher rates of miscarriage in an international cohort of women tracking their cycles, but our sample size was limited. Further research to determine if short luteal phases or luteal phase deficiency is associated with early pregnancy losses among preconception cohorts with daily tracking of cycle parameters, in addition to progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin levels, is warranted. Additionally, future studies should include women with recurrent short luteal phases as a more likely risk factor than isolated short luteal phases.
Reproductive EndocrinologyMenstrual Cycle
Open Access
Adaptive, reversible, hypothalamic reproductive suppression: More than functional hypothalamic amenorrhea
Prior JC, 2022·Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
OPINION article Front. Endocrinol., 19 October 2022Sec. Reproduction Volume 13 - 2022 | //doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2022.893889
Menstrual CycleFertility Awareness
Open Access
Characteristics of menstrual cycles with or without intercourse in women with no known subfertility
Najmabadi S et al., 2022·Hum Reprod Open
Does sexual intercourse enhance the cycle fecundability in women without known subfertility? Sexual intercourse (regardless of timing during the cycle) was associated with cycle characteristics suggesting higher fecundability, including longer luteal phase, less premenstrual spotting and more than 2 days of cervical fluid with estrogen-stimulated qualities. Human females are spontaneous ovulators, experiencing an LH surge and ovulation cyclically, independent of copulation. Natural conception requires intercourse to occur during the fertile window of a woman's menstrual cycle, i.e. the 6-day interval ending on the day of ovulation. However, most women with normal fecundity do not ovulate on Day 14, thus the timing of the hypothetical fertile window varies within and between women. This variability is influenced by age and parity and other known or unknown elements. While the impact of sexual intercourse around the time of implantation on the probability of achieving a pregnancy has been discussed by some researchers, there are limited data regarding how sexual intercourse may influence ovulation occurrence and menstrual cycle characteristics in humans. This study is a pooled analysis of three cohorts of women, enrolled at Creighton Model FertilityCare 'Creighton Model MultiCenter Fecundability Study' (CMFS: retrospective cohort, 1990-1996), 'Time to Pregnancy in Normal Fertility' (TTP: randomized trial, 2003-2006) and 'Creighton Model Effectiveness, Intentions, and Behaviors Assessment' (CEIBA: prospective cohort, 2009-2013). We evaluated cycle phase lengths, bleeding and cervical mucus patterns and estimated the fertile window in 2564 cycles of 530 women, followed for up to 1 year. Participants were US or Canadian women aged 18-40 and not pregnant, who were heterosexually active, without known subfertility and not taking exogenous hormones. Most of the women were intending to avoid pregnancy at the start of follow-up. Women recorded daily vaginal bleeding, mucus discharge and sexual intercourse using a standardized protocol and recording system for up to 1 year, yielding 2564 cycles available for analysis. The peak day of mucus discharge (generally the last day of cervical fluid with estrogen-stimulated qualities of being clear, stretchy or slippery) was used to identify the estimated day of ovulation, which we considered the last day of the follicular phase in ovulatory cycles. We used linear mixed models to assess continuous cycle parameters including cycle, menses and cycle phase lengths, and generalized linear models using Poisson regression with robust variance to assess dichotomous outcomes such as ovulatory function, short luteal phases and presence or absence of follicular or luteal bleeding. Cycles were stratified by the presence or absence of any sexual intercourse, while adjusting for women's parity, age, recent oral contraceptive use and breast feeding. MAIN Most women were <30 years of age (75.5%; median 27, interquartile range 24-29), non-Hispanic white (88.1%), with high socioeconomic indicators and nulliparous (70.9%). Cycles with no sexual intercourse compared to cycles with at least 1 day of sexual intercourse were shorter (29.1 days (95% CI 27.6, 30.7) versus 30.1 days (95% CI 28.7, 31.4)), had shorter luteal phases (10.8 days (95% CI 10.2, 11.5) versus 11.4 days (95% CI 10.9, 12.0)), had a higher probability of luteal phase deficiency (<10 days; adjusted probability ratio (PR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.00, 1.71)), had a higher probability of 2 days of premenstrual spotting (adjusted PR 2.15 (95% CI 1.09, 4.24)) and a higher probability of having two or fewer days of peak-type (estrogenic) cervical fluid (adjusted PR 1.49 (95% CI 1.03, 2.15)). LIMITATIONS Our study participants were geographically dispersed but relatively homogeneous in regard to race, ethnicity, income and educational levels, and all had male partners, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. We cannot exclude the possibility of undetected subfertility or related gynecologic disorders among some of the women, such as undetected endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome, which would impact the generalizability of our findings. Acute illness or stressful events might have reduced the likelihood of any intercourse during a cycle, while also altering cycle characteristics. Some cycles in the no intercourse group may have actually had undocumented intercourse or other sexual activity, but this would bias our results toward the null. The Creighton Model FertilityCare System (CrM) discourages use of barrier methods, so we believe that most instances of intercourse involved exposure to semen; however, condoms may have been used in some cycles. Our dataset lacks any information about the occurrence of female orgasm, precluding our ability to evaluate the independent or combined impact of female orgasm on cycle characteristics. Sexual activity may change reproductive hormonal patterns, and/or levels of reproductive hormones may influence the likelihood of sexual activity. Future work may help with understanding the extent to which exposure to seminal fluid, and/or female orgasm and/or timing of intercourse could impact menstrual cycle function. In theory, large data sets from women using menstrual and fertility tracking apps could be informative if women can be appropriately incentivized to record intercourse completely. It is also of interest to understand how cycle characteristics may differ in women with gynecological problems or subfertility. Funding for the research on the three cohorts analyzed in this study was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation #029258 (Creighton Model MultiCenter Fecundability Study), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1K23 HD0147901-01A1 (Time to Pregnancy in Normal Fertility) and the Office of Family Planning, Office of Population Affairs, Health and Human Services 1FPRPA006035 (Creighton Model Effectiveness, Intentions, and Behaviors Assessment). The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. N/A.
Menstrual CycleReproductive Endocrinology
Open Access
Chronic Stress and Ovulatory Dysfunction: Implications in Times of COVID-19
Vigil P et al., 2022·Front Glob Womens Health
Stress is known to be associated with adverse health outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns are examples of chronic stressors. Lockdown measures inadvertently caused significant psychological distress and became a powerful source of anxiety/stress, sleep disturbances, nutritional changes and weight gain. Stress is known to impact women's health specifically, through hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis dysfunction and resultant ovulatory dysfunction. Such dysfunction may manifest in menstrual irregularities and/or infertility due to hypothalamic hypogonadism. Here, we review the key physiological mediators of stress and associated ovulatory dysfunction. The kisspeptinergic system is comprised of sets of neurons located in the hypothalamus, the rostral periventricular region of the third ventricle (RP3V) and the arcuate nucleus (ARC). This system links nutrition, reproductive signals and stress. It plays a key role in the function of the HPG axis. During chronic stress, the kisspeptinergic system affects the HPG axis, GnRH pulsatility, and, therefore, ovulation. Leptin, insulin and corticotrophin-releasing hormone (CRH) are thought to be additional key modulators in the behavioral responses to chronic stress and may contribute to stress-related ovulatory dysfunction. This mini-review also summarizes and appraises the available evidence on the negative impact of chronic stress as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns. It proposes physiological mechanisms to explain the observed effects on women's reproductive health and well-being. The review suggests areas for future research.