Table 3.
Morphometry of the rete ovarii (mean ± SD).
| Tubules diameter (µm) |
Tubules’ epithelium thickness (µm) |
Lumen diameters (µm) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameters | Mean ± SD | Min | Max | Mean ± SD | Min | Max | Mean ± SD | Min | Max |
| 1 wk | ⁎⁎⁎35.09 ± 24.46 | 0.454 | 70.05 | ⁎⁎12.73 ± 9.06 | 0.15 | 25.67 | ⁎⁎⁎10.56 ± 8.36 | 0.097 | 28.06 |
| 3 wk | ⁎⁎43.23 ± 8.54 | 30.94 | 63.50 | ⁎⁎13.80 ± 3.05 | 7.28 | 20.56 | ⁎⁎⁎16.11 ± 6.56 | 6.42 | 34.48 |
| 1 mo | ⁎⁎44.10 ± 10.49 | 24.42 | 63.67 | ⁎⁎15.14 ± 1.20 | 0.29 | 22.7 | ⁎⁎13.86 ± 7.05 | 0.67 | 31.80 |
| 2 mo | ⁎⁎⁎45.34 ± 7.98 | 29.12 | 59.43 | ⁎⁎15.20 ± 3.47 | 9.32 | 23.66 | ⁎⁎⁎16.93 ± 6.56 | 6.00 | 37.26 |
| 3 mo | ⁎⁎⁎45.19 ± 9.96 | 30.20 | 65.96 | ⁎⁎13.37 ± 3.16 | 7.07 | 20.56 | ⁎⁎14.00 ± 5.18 | 6.10 | 25.70 |
| 4 mo | ⁎⁎40.00 ± 11.99 | 18.95 | 65.05 | ⁎⁎14.65 ± 5.96 | 6.10 | 40.69 | ⁎⁎14.07 ± 4.62 | 5.14 | 24.41 |
Statistical difference: ***P < 0.05, **P > 0.05.
The results of Table 3 showed that there were differences between various parameters of the rete ovarii except for the tubules’ epithelium thickness as demonstrated by one-way ANOVA (F(5,174) = 2.609, ⁎⁎⁎P = 0.027) for the tubules diameters, (F(5,174) = 0.953, ⁎⁎P = 0.448) for the tubules’ epithelium thickness, and (F(5,174) = 3.477, ⁎⁎⁎P = 0.005) for the lumen diameters.
A Tukey post hoc test revealed that almost all components of the rete ovarii were not different from each other for many of its parameters among various age groups (P > 0.05), except when comparing some age groups parameters to those of the 1-wk-old chick (P < 0.05).
A constant increase in Tubules’ diameter was noted from 1-wk-old to 3-mo-old before recording a slight decrease in the 4-mo-old chicken (⁎⁎P = 0.105 to ⁎⁎P = 1). The tubules’ diameters of the rete ovarii were only different when comparing the 1-wk-old to the 2-mo-old and the 3-mo-old chicks (⁎⁎⁎P = 0.042 and ⁎⁎⁎P = 0.047 respectively). The epithelium of the rete ovarii's tubules displayed an increase in their thickness from 1-wk-old to 2-mo-old before decreasing slightly in the 3-mo-old chick and continued their growth in the 4-mo-old chick, displaying no statistically difference among all age groups observed (⁎⁎P = 0.541 to ⁎⁎P = 1). The lumen of the tubules appeared to have increased significantly between 1-wk-old and 3-wk-old of age (⁎⁎⁎P = 0.015) before recording a great decrease in a 1-mo-old chicken (⁎⁎P = 0.05). Another great increase in lumen diameters was noted in the 2-mo-old chick and appeared to be different relative to the 1-wk-old chick only (⁎⁎⁎P = 0.003) with parameters stabilization afterward. The comparison between other age groups showed no difference between them (⁎⁎P = 0.298 to ⁎⁎P = 1).