Prolonged glucocorticoid administration affects oocyte morphology in cats (Felis catus) undergoing an ovarian...

While captivity-related stress and the associated rise in baseline glucocorticoid (GC) concentrations have been linked to ovarian quiescence in some felid species, no study has examined the effects of elevated GC on oocyte quality. This study examined the effects of exogenous GC administration on the ovarian response and oocyte quality of domestic cats after an ovarian stimulation protocol. Entire mature female cats were divided into treatment (n = 6) and control (n = 6) groups. Cats in the GC treatment (GCT) group were given 1 mg kg^-1 oral prednisolone daily from Day 0-45. All cats (n = 12) were given 0.088 mg kg^-1 day^-1 progesterone orally from Day 0-37, before treatment with 75 IU eCG im to induce follicular growth on Day 40, followed by 50 IU hCG im 80 h later to induce ovulation. Cats were ovariohysterectomised 30 h after the hCG treatment. Blood samples were collected on Days 0, 10, 30 and 40 (prior to eCG treatment), 80 h after eCG treatment, and on Day 45 for cortisol, glucose, prednisolone, oestradiol, and progesterone analysis. Cortisol concentrations did not differ between treatment groups throughout the study. Mean glucose concentrations were higher in the GCT cats (P = 0.004). Prednisolone was undetectable in all samples. Oestradiol and progesterone concentrations confirmed that the eCG treatment stimulated follicular activity and ovulation in all cats. Following ovariohysterectomy, the ovarian responses were graded (1 = excellent, 4 = poor) and oocytes retrieved from the oviducts. Each oocyte was given a total oocyte score (TOS: using an 9-point scale, 8 = best) based on four parameters: oocyte morphology, size, ooplasm uniformity and granularity, and zona pellucida (ZP) thickness and variation. Ovulation was confirmed in all cats, with a mean of 10.5 ± 1.1 ovulations per cat. Ovarian mass, ovarian response, number of ovulations, and oocyte recovery did not differ between groups. Oocyte diameter did not differ between the groups, but the ZP was thinner in the GCT group (3.1 ± 0.3 μm vs. 4.1 ± 0.3 μm, P = 0.03). The TOS was similar between treatment and control cats, but the ooplasm grade was lower (1.5 ± 0.1 vs. 1.9 ± 0.1, P = 0.01) and there was a tendency for ZP grade to be poorer (0.8 ± 0.1 vs. 1.2 ± 0.2; P = 0.08) in the treatment group. In conclusion, the GC treatment resulted in morphological changes to oocytes collected following ovarian stimulation. Whether these changes would affect fertility warrants further investigation.