Evidence Hub

Effects of caponization and testosterone implantation on immunity in male chickens

Chen KL, Tsay SM, Chiou PW, Chen TW, Weng BC

Poultry science, 2009

Abstract

This study examined the effects of caponization using different doses of testosterone (TES) on sexuality, hematology, and immune responses in male chickens. Healthy male chickens were caponized at 12 wk of age and selected at 16 wk of age for a 10-wk experiment. Fifteen intact male and 15 caponized male chickens were assigned to trial 1. In trial 2, ten sham-operated male chickens (sham) and 40 capons (randomly divided into 4 treatments) were implanted with cholesterol (CHOL, 9.24+/-0.36 mg), low TES (5.88+/-0.23 mg), medium TES (9.81+/-0.17 mg), or high TES (16.7+/-0.24 mg) administered at 16, 20, and 24 wk of age. Results from trial 1 showed caponization decreased the comb length, height and weight, and hematocrit (P0.05). The phytohemagglutinin response was higher in the high TES group 24 h postinjection (P<0.05) and in the medium TES 48 h postinjection (P<0.05) as compared with the CHOL group. High dose TES implantation decreased the white blood cell counts as compared with the CHOL and sham groups (P<0.05). It appears that caponization decreased the blood androgen concentration and enhanced the humoral (anti-NDV and anti-SRBC) immune response. Testosterone implantation up to a threshold concentration could inhibit the humoral (anti-NDV) immune response and increase the cell-mediated (phytohemagglutinin) immune response.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free