Exogenous gonadotropins do not increase the blood-follicular transportation capacity of extra-ovarian hormones such as prolactin and cortisol.

BACKGROUNDS In vitro fertilization involves high dosage gonadotropin stimulation, which apparently has some negative impact on follicular endocrine function. As chorionic gonadotropin stimulation has been shown to increase the blood-follicular permeability in animal models, this raises the question if such an effect also applies to gonadotropins in humans, possibly affecting the endocrine follicular milieu. FINDINGS Follicular fluid and serum were collected at the time of follicular aspiration in in vitro fertilisation without (Natural cycle IVF, n = 24) and with (conventional gonadotropin stimulated IVF, n = 31) gonadotropin stimulation. The concentration of the extra-ovarian hormones prolactin and cortisol were analysed by immunoassays. RESULTS Median serum prolactin and cortisol concentrations were 12.3 ng/mL and 399 nmol/L without versus 32.2 ng/mL and 623 nmol/L with gonadotropin stimulation. The corresponding concentrations in follicular fluid were 20.6 ng/mL and 445 nmol/L versus 28.8 ng/ml and 456 nmol/L for prolactin and cortisol. As a consequence, mean follicular fluid:serum ratios were significantly reduced under gonadotropin stimulation (prolactin p = 0.0138, cortisol p = 0.0001). As an enhanced blood-follicular permeability and transportation, induced by gonadotropin stimulation, would result in increased instead of decreased follicular fluid:serum ratios as found in this study, it can be assumed that this does not affect extra-ovarian protein and steroid hormones as illustrated by prolactin and cortisol. CONCLUSIONS The model of serum follicular fluid:serum ratio of hormones, produced outside the ovaries, did not reveal a gonadotropin induced increased blood-follicular transportation capacity. Therefore it can be assumed that the effect of gonadotropins on follicular endocrine function is not due to an increased ovarian permeability of extra-ovarian hormones.

Balancing Control and Coaching in CSO Governance : A Paradox Perspective on Board Behavior

How can governance of civil society organizations be conceptualized more adequately by accounting for the dual and simultaneous requirements of controlling and coaching in board behavior? Empirically, we seem to agree that effective governance of a civil society organization is crucial to its sustained viability. Conceptually, however, we observe a lack of consensus on how to best conceptualize CSO governance. By critically juxtaposing two major theoretical lenses to conceptualize governance, namely agency and stewardship theory, we identify a number of challenges conceptualizing board-management relations that deserve our attention. While agency theory privileges controlling behavior, stewardship theory emphasizes the coaching behavior of boards. The purpose of this paper is to offer a concept of governance that is informed by a paradox perspective advancing a subtler, more adequate conceptualization of board governance that accounts for the often conflicting demands on CSO governance. Drawing on a longitudinal interpretive case study, we exemplify our propositions empirically. The paper concludes with discussing the implications of our argument for CSO governance research and practice.