| Literature DB >> 22114602 |
Abstract
The chemical profiles of vaginal fluid collected from cows in oestrus and nonoestrus were analysed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to establish any qualitative differences that might have potential value in bovine biocommunication. Eight different organic compounds were detected using the two chromatograms. The chemical profiles of oestrus vaginal fluid were distinguished significantly by the presence of three specific substances, namely, trimethylamine, acetic acid, and propionic acid that were not present in nonoestrus phase. The oestrus specific synthetic compounds were rubbed onto the genital region of nonoestrus animals (dummy cows), and the bulls were allowed to sniff the genital region and observed sexual behaviours. The statistical significance was higher (P < 0.001) in bulls exhibiting repeated flehmen and mounting behaviours towards the mixture of acetic acid, propionic acid, and trimethylamine as compared to test these compounds separately. It was concluded that the volatile substances present in the bovine vaginal fluid during oestrus may act as chemical communicators.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22114602 PMCID: PMC3202105 DOI: 10.1155/2011/256106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Figure 1Gas chromatographs of the vaginal fluid compounds identified in oestrus and nonoestrus stages in bovine Bos taurus.
Figure 2Mass spectrometry of the vaginal fluid compounds identified in the two estrus stages in bovine Bos taurus.
Volatile compounds identified in bovines' vaginal fluids during the oestrous cycle.
| Peaks | Molecular weight | Identified compounds | Oestrus | Nonoestrus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 59 | Trimethylamine | + | − |
| 2 | 60 | Acetic acid | + | − |
| 3 | 94 | Phenol | + | − |
| 4 | 130 | Propionic acid | + | − |
| 5 | 124 | Cyclohexane,3,3,5-Trimethyl | − | + |
| 6 | 174 | Phosphonic acid | − | + |
| 7 | 102 | 3-hexanol | + | + |
+ Indicates the presence of the compound; − Indicates the absence of the compound.
Bioactivity of oestrus-specific compounds.
| S. no. | Oestrus-specific compounds | Duration of flehmen (seconds) | Number of mounts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Acetic acid | 5.52 ± 0.02 | 8.40 ± 0.46 |
| 2 | Propionic acid | 5.58 ± 0.22 | 8.80 ± 0.52 |
| 3 | Trimethylamine | 4.20 ± 0.08 | 5.85 ± 0.52 |
| 4 | Phenol | 2.63 ± 0.02 | 3.96 ± 0.40 |
| 5 | Mixture of acetic acid and propionic acid | 6.96 ± 0.52 | 8.84 ± 0.52 |
| 6 | Mixture of acetic acid and trimethylamine | 4.68 ± 0.54 | 6.08 ± 0.40 |
| 7 | Mixture of propionic acid and trimethylamine | 5.13 ± 0.33 | 5.60 ± 0.06 |
| 8 | Mixture of acetic acid, propionic acid and trimethylamine | 8.60 ± 0.01 | 10.94 ± 0.87 |
| 9 | Phosphonic acid (negative control; non-oestrus sample) | 2.19 ± 0.33 | 3.63 ± 0.36 |
Values are mean ± S.E of six observations.
(a)
| ANOVA | ||||||
| Sum of squares | df | Mean squares |
|
| ||
|
| ||||||
| VAR 00001 | Between squares | 189.995 | 8 | 23.749 | 76.874 | 0.000** |
| Within groups | 13.902 | 45 | .309 | |||
| Total | 203.897 | 53 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| VAR 00003 | Between squares | 294.012 | 8 | 36.752 | 134.779 | 0.000** |
| Within groups | 12.271 | 45 | .273 | |||
| Total | 306.283 | 53 | ||||
**Level of significance at (P < 0.001).
(b)
| VAR 00001 | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Subset for alpha = .05 | |||||||
| VAR 00002 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|
| |||||||
| Phosphonic acid | 6 | 2.1917 | |||||
| Phenol | 6 | 2.6333 | |||||
| Trimethylamine | 6 | 4.2083 | |||||
| Acetic + TMA | 6 | 4.6817 | 4.6817 | ||||
| Propionic + TMA | 6 | 5.1367 | 5.1367 | ||||
| Acetic acid | 6 | 5.5250 | |||||
| Propionic acid | 6 | 5.5800 | |||||
| Acetic + propionic | 6 | 6.9600 | |||||
|
| 6 |
| |||||
| Significant | 0.176 | 0.147 | 0.163 | 0.199 | 1.000 | 1.000* | |
Means for groups in homogenous subsets are displayed comparison of means using DMRT. The DMRT test showed that the mixture of acetic acid, propionic acid, and trimethylamine was found to be significant (P < 0.001) compared to those of acetic acid, propionic acid, Trimethylamine, phosphonic acid, and phenol separately as well as combinations.
(c)
| VAR 00001 DUNCAN | |||||
|
| |||||
| Subset for alpha = .05 | |||||
| VAR 00002 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|
| |||||
| Phosphonic acid | 6 | 3.6350 | |||
| Phenol | 6 | 3.9683 | |||
| Propionic + TMA | 6 | 5.6067 | |||
| Trimethylamine | 6 | 5.8567 | |||
| Acetic + TMA | 6 | 6.0817 | |||
| Acetic acid | 6 | 8.4033 | |||
| Acetic + propionic | 6 | 8.8467 | |||
| Propionic acid | 6 | 8.8867 | |||
|
| 6 |
| |||
| Significant | 0.275 | 0.144 | 0.137 | 1.000* | |
Means for groups in homogenous subsets are displayed comparison of means using DMRT. The DMRT test showed that the mixture of acetic acid, propionic acid, and trimethylamine was found to be significant (P < 0.001) compared to those of acetic acid, propionic acid, trimethylamine, phosphonic acid, and phenol separately as well as combinations. Abbreviation: TMA: trimethylamine.