Next Article in Journal
Effects of Feeding Strategies on Gut Microbial Communities in Donkeys: A Comprehensive Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
High-Accuracy Serodiagnosis of African Swine Fever Using P72 and P30-Based Lateral Flow Assays: A Validation Study with Field Samples in Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/vetsci13010005
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Reproductive Control in Dogs with Emphasis on Anti-GnRH Immunocastration and Its Behavioral Effects

by
María José Ubilla
1,2,
Manel Lopez-Bejar
3,
Daniela Siel
4,5,* and
Leonardo Sáenz
6,*
1
Escuela Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Agronomía, Universidad de las Américas, Avenida Manuel Montt 948, Providencia, Santiago 7500000, Chile
2
Programa de Doctorado en Producción Animal, Universitat Autònomade Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
3
College of Veterinary Medicine, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
4
Escuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Mayor, Camino La Pirámide 5750, Santiago 8580835, Chile
5
Centro de Biomedicina, Universidad Mayor, Camino La Pirámide 5750, Santiago 8580835, Chile
6
Laboratorio de Vacunas Veterinarias, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago 8820808, Chile
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Vet. Sci. 2026, 13(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci13010005 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 17 September 2025 / Revised: 18 October 2025 / Accepted: 24 October 2025 / Published: 20 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Veterinary Biomedical Sciences)
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Dog overpopulation is a global issue affecting public health, the environment, and animal welfare. Many free-roaming dogs live in cities, contributing to the spread of diseases, traffic accidents, and environmental contamination. Traditional control methods, like surgical castration or euthanasia, can be costly, invasive, or socially unacceptable. Immunocastration—a type of vaccination that prevents reproduction by targeting reproductive hormones—offers a promising, more humane alternative. This approach avoids surgery, reduces unwanted behaviors like aggression or roaming, and can be applied on a large scale. This review explores how immunocastration works, its effects on dogs’ behavior and health, and how it compares to traditional sterilization. It also reviews evidence from other species, including pigs, cattle, and horses, where immunocastration has been used successfully. The findings show that this method can help reduce dog overpopulation more ethically and sustainably, especially in areas with limited veterinary resources. By better understanding the benefits and limitations of immunocastration, veterinarians and policymakers can make more informed decisions to promote animal and public health.

Abstract

Dog overpopulation poses serious challenges to public health, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability. While surgical castration remains the most commonly used method for controlling reproduction in dogs, it carries risks and limitations, including surgical complications and long-term behavioral or physiological side effects. This review examines the potential of immunocastration—vaccination targeting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)—as an alternative approach. Immunocastration has been shown to suppress reproductive hormones, reduce gonadal function, and decrease behaviors such as roaming, aggression, and sexual mounting in dogs. The review also includes evidence from other species (e.g., pigs, cattle, and horses) to contextualize effectiveness and welfare implications. While behavioral effects are more variable and less frequently studied than physiological outcomes, recent findings suggest immunocastration may have fewer negative emotional side effects (e.g., anxiety and stress-related behaviors) than surgical sterilization. The review highlights the mechanisms, applications, and behavioral outcomes of immunocastration, including its reversibility, cost-effectiveness, and suitability for mass implementation. Overall, immunocastration offers a promising addition to dog population management strategies, particularly in regions with limited surgical infrastructure. Future research should focus on standardizing vaccine protocols and assessing long-term behavioral and welfare outcomes in diverse dog populations.

1. Introduction

The increasing coexistence between humans and pets reflects a complex and multidimensional social challenge, encompassing impacts on human quality of life, public health, environmental integrity, animal welfare, etc. [1,2]. Globally, the dog population is estimated to range between 700 [3,4] and 900 million [5], with approximately 75% of these dogs roaming and reproducing freely [6,7]. Although most of these dogs have owners [8,9], fewer than 10% are truly ownerless. However, many are allowed to roam freely, reflecting patterns of irresponsible ownership rather than the absence of owners [10,11]. Each year, between 6 and 8 million dogs and cats enter shelters, many of which are overwhelmed and forced to limit admissions or resort to euthanasia. It is estimated that 2.7 million healthy, adoptable animals are euthanized annually in shelters [12].
Free-roaming dogs often suffer from hunger, illness, and lack of care [13,14] and frequently approach human communities seeking shelter [14]. Their unsupervised presence contributes to overpopulation [7,15,16], supported by high adaptability, year-round reproductive capacity, and trophic opportunism [6]. Furthermore, domestication has likely enhanced dietary flexibility [17,18]. Thorne [17] noted that food remnants from human settlements served as a primary food source for early domestic dogs, promoting trophic opportunism. Similarly, Bhalla et al. [19] suggest that garbage acts as a secondary food source for owned free-roaming dogs and as a primary resource for truly stray populations. Several studies have shown that the presence of dogs in urban areas declines significantly when food waste is secured or properly managed [8,20,21].
Unsupervised and ownerless dogs pose multiple challenges in urban settings, including the transmission of zoonotic diseases, attacks, and bites [13]. Dogs are vectors for diseases such as rabies [20,22,23,24], leptospirosis, trichinosis, dirofilariasis, echinococcosis, hydatidosis, larva migrans, brucellosis, and scabies, among others [25,26]. Other public health concerns include physical attacks, bites, and environmental contamination with garbage and feces [19,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. According to the World Health Organization [3], while there are no global estimates of dog bite incidence, studies suggest that tens of millions of injuries occur annually, with approximately 4.5 million people bitten by dogs each year in the United States alone [3]. In low- and middle-income countries, the burden of dog bites is even higher. In India, Sudarshan et al. [38] estimated that around 12 million people are bitten by free-roaming dogs each year. Similarly, Calderón et al. [39] reported an annual incidence rate of 105.6 dog bites per 100,000 inhabitants in Chile, where most victims were children aged 1–14 years and injuries were mainly located on the lower extremities. Comparable age-related patterns have also been described in Ecuador. Consequently, dog bites are recognized as a significant global public health problem [3], with serious physical [40], fatal [41], and psychological [42,43] consequences for humans.
Environmental contamination is another critical issue linked to the abundance of free-roaming dogs. Fecal matter and urine contribute to bad odors, attract flies and rodents, and pose a sanitation risk [13]. The accumulation of dog waste in urban areas represents an important source of environmental pollution and potential transmission of zoonotic pathogens [25]. Additionally, free-roaming dogs are involved in road accidents [2,25,26,31,44], are linked to the transmission of diseases to livestock and livestock predation [7,45,46], and pose a major threat to biodiversity [4,5,45,47,48,49,50,51,52,53].
Given these complex and overlapping impacts, the need for effective, ethical, and sustainable methods for dog population control is urgent. Among non-surgical strategies, immunocontraception—particularly GnRH-based immunization—offers promising outcomes in terms of efficacy, safety, animal welfare, and public acceptability. This review presents a comprehensive synthesis of immunocastration in dogs, examining its physiological and behavioral effects and assessing its potential role in veterinary public health programs.

2. Reproductive Control in Dogs: Approaches and Considerations

Controlling dog reproduction is essential to address overpopulation and its associated health and welfare problems. Various methods have been developed and applied in veterinary practice, ranging from surgical sterilization to hormonal and immunological approaches. The choice of strategy depends on biological, ethical, and socioeconomic factors, as well as the feasibility of implementation in different settings.
Among the strategies implemented to control domestic dog overpopulation worldwide, mass culling, educational campaigns, surgical sterilization, and non-surgical contraception have been the most common approaches. Mass culling has been employed in various countries primarily to control infectious zoonotic diseases such as rabies [54] and leishmaniasis [55]. However, this practice has proven both ineffective and socially unacceptable. Moreover, for ethical, ecological, and economic reasons, the large-scale elimination of animals is no longer considered an acceptable method for disease control [56]. Thus, public policy decisions must be evidence-based, aiming to effectively manage dog and cat populations in urban areas and reduce zoonotic risks [44].
Educational campaigns promoting responsible pet ownership have also been developed [57,58,59], although effectiveness can be limited [60] and often depends on cultural factors [57], campaign design, and proper evaluation. Nevertheless, such initiatives can contribute meaningfully to improving the welfare of companion dogs [60].
In Latin America, countries such as Chile reflect similar challenges. Several studies have described canine demographics in Chile [8,61,62,63,64,65,66]. In 2006, it was estimated that 214,933 free-roaming dogs lived in the Metropolitan Region alone [8,66]. By 2015, the population of owned dogs had reached approximately 3.5 million, with 29% reported to roam public spaces without supervision [67]. Later data showed that six out of ten Chilean households have at least one pet, with dogs being the most common: 52% of households own a dog, and 25% own a cat [68]. According to the Ipsos Observer [69] survey, 73% of respondents (out of a sample of 904) reported owning pets, of which 82% were dogs and 42% were cats. Notably, 74% of respondents considered free-roaming dogs a societal problem, an increase from 55% in 2018. The main concerns included zoonotic disease transmission to humans and animals (46%), risk of bites to people and pets (70%), contamination of public spaces (44%), road accidents (31%), and the hunting of wildlife (13%) [69]. More recently, a 2022 study conducted by the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile estimated a national pet population of nearly 12 million animals, including approximately 8.5 million dogs and 3.6 million cats, with 72% of households owning at least one companion animal [70].

3. Surgical Sterilization in Dogs: Efficacy, Applications and Limitations

For years, surgical sterilization has been the technique par excellence for the control of unwanted reproduction in pets [71,72,73]. This includes traditional midline-ovariohysterectomy, lateral flank-ovariectomy, castration, early-life gonadectomy, oophorectomy, laparoscopic ovariohysterectomy and ovariectomy, and vasectomy [74]. Gonadectomy is performed primarily on female dogs and is particularly effective in settings where resources are limited or where there is cultural opposition to testicular removal in males [75]. Likewise, sterilization has been used as a therapy for the management of some behavioral problems in dogs, mainly males, notably urine marking, intrasexual aggressiveness and roaming behavior [72,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84] and the prevention of reproductive pathologies such as mammary and testicular tumors [75,81,83,84,85] prevention of pyometra [86], prevention of benign prostatic hypertrophy [85] or prevention of hernias and perineal fistulas [75]. However, some studies show that castration could lead to adverse health and behavioral outcomes, such as the development of orthopedic disorders [75,86,87], and an increased risk of neoplasms, including prostate carcinoma [88], osteosarcoma [89], hemangiosarcoma [75,90], as well as urinary incontinence [90,91]. In humans, surgical sterilization leads to a sustained increase in gonadotropins, particularly follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), which has been associated with collateral effects such as metabolic alterations, bone loss, and a higher risk of age-related inflammatory diseases [92].
Although gonadectomy can be considered a routine surgical procedure [74], like any other surgery, it requires anesthesia, specialized equipment, appropriate facilities, and sufficient recovery time, and carries the risks associated with surgical interventions [93,94]. Complications may include anesthetic events [95], hemorrhage [96], and issues resulting from inadequate technique, such as ovarian remnant syndrome [74,91,97], infections, dehiscence, urinary incontinence, and ovarian remnant [91].
On the other hand, modelling studies have shown that sustained sterilization over time can reduce dog population density—provided there is no migration of unsterilized animals into the target area. For example, a 20% reduction in population density could be achieved after approximately five years of continuous sterilization campaigns [57]. Dias et al. [44] observed that, even with sterilization of 100% of intact animals annually, it would not be possible to obtain a proportion greater than 86% of dogs after 20 years due to recruitment from neighboring populations.

4. Non-Surgical Alternatives for Canine Reproductive Control

The growing need for accessible, reversible, and ethically acceptable complementary alternatives to castration in canine population control has driven the development and implementation of various non-surgical contraceptive strategies. These include chemical castration, vaccination against zona pellucida glycoproteins, the use of synthetic GnRH analogues, and immunocastration through GnRH vaccines. The following sections provide an overview of these methods, discussing the mechanisms of action, advantages, limitations, and current applications.

4.1. Chemical Castration

Chemical sterilization involves injecting chemical agents (e.g., calcium chloride or zinc gluconate) into the testicles to induce testicular atrophy, azoospermia, and long-term infertility. Calcium chloride has shown durable sterilizing effects in dogs and rodents [98,99]. Zinc gluconate, although effective, may cause transient local inflammation and testicular tissue necrosis [100,101]. More recent studies support the efficacy of intratesticular zinc gluconate administration in male dogs as a safe, cost-effective, and minimally invasive alternative to surgical castration, although mild post-injection swelling and inflammation have been reported [102,103,104]. Despite being suitable for use in field conditions, chemical sterilization requires specific training and strict handling protocols to ensure both treatment success and animal welfare.

4.2. Zona Pellucida Vaccination

Vaccination against zona pellucida (ZP) glycoproteins aims to prevent fertilization by inducing an immune response that produces antibodies capable of blocking sperm-oocyte binding. This method has been widely tested in wildlife species such as white-tailed deer, horses and elephants, with promising and encouraging outcomes [105,106,107]. In companion animals, especially female dogs, the use of porcine ZP vaccines has shown moderate and variable contraceptive efficacy [108,109]. However, the effectiveness is limited by inconsistent antibody production and the need for multiple booster doses to maintain contraceptive effect. Moreover, these vaccines do not suppress estrous behavior and are ineffective in males, reducing the practical utility for population control of free-roaming dogs [110,111].

4.3. GnRH Agonists and Antagonists

Another category of non-surgical fertility control involves the use of synthetic GnRH agonists and antagonists. GnRH agonists such as deslorelin initially stimulate, then suppress, the secretion of gonadotropins (LH and FSH). Deslorelin-releasing implants have been successfully used in dogs for temporary and reversible infertility [112,113]. GnRH antagonists like acyline offer immediate suppression of LH and FSH, but require frequent administration and are currently limited in use due to high cost [114]. Both methods offer reversible, hormone-dependent control of reproduction, making them valuable in selected clinical or field contexts.

5. Immunocastration as an Alternative to Surgical Castration

Immunocastration involves the use of antigens that induce antibody production against GnRH, disrupting the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis and leading to suppressed sexual and reproductive function. Compared to surgical sterilization, it offers fewer adverse effects, is cost-effective, and can be applied in large-scale immunization programs [115]. Studies in dogs have demonstrated efficacy in reducing testosterone levels, modifying behaviors such as roaming, aggression, and marking, and achieving reversible fertility suppression [116,117,118].
GnRH is a decapeptide induced at the hypothalamic level and, when transported via the hypothalamic–pituitary portal vein to the adenohypophysis, regulates the release of luteinising hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), both crucial in male and female reproductive physiology [119,120,121]. Immunocastration works by immunoneutralizing GnRH-I, preventing the hormone from binding to receptors on the pituitary gonadotroph cells, thus creating an immunological blockade between the hypothalamus and pituitary gland [118]. This results in decreased secretion of gonadotrophins, inhibition of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis, and suppression of gametogenesis and sexual behavior [118,122,123,124,125,126].
GnRH is highly conserved across mammalian species; thus, fertility control technologies targeting the hormone have broad cross-species applicability. Blocking GnRH is used, not only for fertility control, but also to reduce libido, improve meat quality, eliminate carcass odors associated with testosterone, and serve as adjunct treatments for hormone-dependent neoplasms [127]. Immunocastration has been successfully applied in numerous species, including cattle [128,129,130], camelids [131], pigs [119,120,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140] camels [141], equines [126,142,143], rats [144,145,146,147,148], mice [124,149], and sheep [150,151,152,153].
In these studies, a variety of outcomes have been investigated, with particular focus on anti-GnRH antibody (IgG) production, serum testosterone levels, and histopathological changes in gonadal tissue. Table 1 summarizes representative studies on immunocastration conducted in various animal species. Most investigations reported a consistent decrease in testosterone, reduced testicular size and weight, and histological evidence of seminiferous tubule atrophy and impaired spermatogenesis [119,133,134,135]. Kress et al. [139] further confirmed that immunocastration is a reliable and effective method across different production settings.
Research into behavioral changes, particularly in pigs, remains relatively limited and has primarily focused on reductions in sexual (mounting) and aggressive (head-butting, fighting, biting) behaviors, where immunocastration has shown a clear and measurable suppressive effect [119,120,136].
In cattle, immunocastration has demonstrated similar physiological and behavioral effects. Janett et al. [129] reported that immunocastrated young bulls showed elevated antibody titers, decreased testosterone levels, reduced scrotal circumference, and lower physical activity without affecting weight gain. Price et al. [128] observed that head-butting and fighting behavior were significantly reduced in immunocastrated bulls, reaching levels comparable to surgically castrated steers. Siel et al. [154] demonstrated that reduced gonadal function, evidenced by decreased progesterone levels and suppression of estrus, improved productive performance, particularly a better feed conversion efficiency (FCE: 5.58 vs. 5.69 in placebo).
Research in horses has yielded comparable findings. Janett et al. [143] and Turkstra et al. [142] reported reduced circulating testosterone levels, smaller testicular size, suppressed libido, and changes in sperm quality following immunocastration. In donkeys, Rocha et al. [126] found sustained reductions in testosterone concentration, histological degeneration of testicular tissue, and azoospermia in 75% of vaccinated animals.
In sheep, Han et al. [153] found that immunocastration elicited a robust anti-GnRH immune response, decreased testosterone, LH, and FSH levels, and induced testicular atrophy. Gökdal et al. [151] reported that while immunocastration modified reproductive parameters, it did not adversely affect growth performance, carcass quality, or meat quality traits.
Studies in rodents have provided additional insights into the physiological impact of immunocastration. Han et al. [127] and Sáenz et al. [145] both observed significant declines in testosterone and LH levels, testicular atrophy, and impaired spermatogenesis. Furthermore, Han et al. [127] reported enhanced feed conversion and growth rates in immunocastrated rats compared to surgically castrated controls.
Immunocastration is also being explored in wildlife management, with studies demonstrating efficacy in species such as white-tailed deer [106,157], squirrels [158], elk [159], prairie dogs [100], and bison [105]; although these applications are beyond the scope of this review.
Recent studies further strengthen the evidence for immunocastration across species.
In dogs, Siel et al. [117] demonstrated that a new GnRH-based vaccine effectively lowered testosterone levels and reduced undesired behaviors in both experimental and field trials.
In cattle, Huenchullan et al. [160] and Siel et al. [154] confirmed the efficacy of recombinant GnRH vaccines in controlling reproductive functions and improving carcass yields.
In sheep, Zhang et al. [155] found that GnRH immunocastration positively influenced the rumen microbiome profile, improving nutrient utilization and health. Similarly, in pigs, immunocastration protocols were shown to preserve key meat quality traits while effectively reducing boar taint compounds in the Bísaro breed [161].
These findings collectively highlight the versatility and potential of immunocastration as a complementary strategy to surgical castration across a wide range of species, offering advantages not only in reproductive management but also in animal welfare and productivity.

6. Contraceptive Strategies and Behavioral Outcomes in Dogs: From Surgical Sterilization to Immunocastration

6.1. Sex Steroids, Gonadectomy, and Behavior in Dogs

6.1.1. Hormonal Regulation of Behavior

The hormones produced by the gonads influence a variety of behaviors in vertebrates [162]. During puberty, the central nervous system stimulates the gonads (testes or ovaries) to produce sex hormones, which cause sexual maturation. Neurons in the hypothalamus synthesize and release gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH), which stimulates the production and release of gonadotrophic hormones (FSH and LH) in the anterior pituitary. These, in turn, stimulate male and female gonads to produce sex steroids (testosterone and estradiol, respectively) [163,164].

6.1.2. Surgical Sterilization and Its Physiological Effects

Contraception by surgical sterilization (gonadectomy) is an irreversible procedure that results in the permanent cessation of reproductive function [165]. It consists of the removal of reproductive organs and is used not only to control the population of companion animals but also to confer health benefits, such as reducing the risk of mammary tumors, pyometra, and testicular neoplasms [166]. The most common surgical methods to remove gonads in females are ovariectomy and ovariohysterectomy via the linea alba, flank, or laparoscopic surgery [165], while in males, it is castration [94,167].

6.1.3. Historical Perspective and Sexual Behavior

Since the 1920s, the effect of castration on sexual behavior in various mammalian species has been studied [168]. Hart and Eckstein [77] reported that gonadectomy often results in the complete and immediate elimination of sexual behavior. However, they also noted that non-sexual behaviors may be affected. In a later study, Hart [169] observed that in both dogs and cats, behavioral changes after castration may not appear immediately but rather develop gradually over several weeks. Supporting this, Templin et al. [170] found that approximately 30% of castrated mice exhibited male sexual behavior months after castration, likely due to the persistence of protein effects induced by sex hormones [171] and influenced by previous experience and age at castration [72].

6.1.4. Hormonal Influences on Behavior

Sex hormones such as estrogen in females and testosterone in males regulate key aspects of social and sexual behavior [172]. Castration has been shown to affect mating, erection, and ejaculation [169]. Experimental studies across various species, including rats [173,174], cats [175], dogs [169,176], and rhesus monkeys [177], consistently report reductions in libido and sexual behaviors following castration.
Beyond sexual behavior, sex hormones also influence social interactions and aggressive behaviors within species [178]. Prenatal exposure to androgens plays a crucial role in the development of aggressive tendencies across a wide range of species [179]. Males are generally more aggressive than females, a pattern attributed to the activation effects of androgens [79,180,181,182]. Numerous studies associate castration with a reduction in aggressive behavior, particularly intrasexual aggression among males [72,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,171,183]. Nevertheless, castration may also increase anxiety and fear responses [77,184,185,186] as sex hormones exert anxiolytic and analgesic effects in various species, including humans [172]. Additionally, Palestrini et al. [187] observed that while castrated male dogs showed reduced mounting behavior, owner-directed aggression showed only a tendency to decrease, and marking behavior did not vary significantly over time. Emotional disturbances such as distress have also been associated with castration [188].

6.1.5. Evidence from Population Studies

Hopkins et al. [76] reported a reduction in aggression toward other males in 60% of castrated dogs, but no change in territorial or fear-induced aggression. McGreevy et al. [189] analyzed behavioral data from 6235 neutered male dogs, finding increased fear and aggression towards strangers and other animals. In females, Podberscek & Serpell [190] noted increased aggression towards children following sterilization. Similarly, Kim et al. [191] observed heightened reactivity in ovariohysterectomised German Shepherd bitches towards unfamiliar people and dogs, while other studies [192,193,194] documented increased aggressiveness towards owners.
Gonadectomy has been shown to significantly reduce mounting and roaming behaviors by between 60% and 90% [76,78,180]. Cannas et al. [195] evaluated owner perceptions in 65 dogs and found no significant changes in behaviors such as play, feeding, or grooming, but observed a significant reduction in mounting and increased reactivity to noise in females.
Territorial marking, particularly using urine, is a sexually dimorphic behavior primarily exhibited by adult males [196,197]. Caffazo et al. [198] described marking as a territorial and competitive behavior among free-roaming dogs. While Beach [196] found that neonatal castration affected marking posture, later studies showed reductions in marking frequency in adult neutered males [76,78,180,183,189,199,200,201] Dogs also use feces and ground scratches for marking, with these signals being more durable and conspicuous than urine [197,202]. However, McGuire [201] did not observe a decrease in marking with feces or scratching after castration.

6.2. Sex Steroids, Immunocastration, and Behavior in Dogs

As observed in production and laboratory animals, studies on immunocastration in companion animals (dogs and cats) have mainly focused on immunological and physiological outcomes, while behavioral effects remain less explored [110,203,204,205,206,207,208,209] (see Table 2).
In male cats, Levy et al. [208] reported that three months after vaccination, serum testosterone levels in responsive individuals became undetectable, accompanied by testicular atrophy and reduced spermatogenesis. Later, Levy et al. [110] found that 93% of immunized cats remained infertile during the first year, with effects persisting even for several years.
In Beagle dogs, Basulto et al. [203] demonstrated that high anti-GnRH antibody titers developed six weeks post-vaccination were associated with impaired spermatogenesis and testicular atrophy. Similarly, Jung et al. [116] evaluated various anti-GnRH vaccine formulations, observing that a vaccine comprising canine GnRH conjugated with a T helper cell epitope from canine distemper virus achieved the highest antibody titers and greater suppression of gonadal function.
Walker et al. [204] further confirmed that immunocastration could suppress testosterone and progesterone levels in both male and female dogs. Donovan et al. [206] showed that immunized male dogs developed high anti-GnRH antibody titers, reduced luteinising hormone (LH) and testosterone levels, and significant reductions in testicular volume. Likewise, Liu et al. [207] demonstrated that vaccinated males and females exhibited gonadal atrophy, weight loss, and decreased testosterone and estradiol concentrations.
Behavioral studies following immunocastration have provided additional insights. Bargsted [205] observed that although individual responses varied, male dogs that exhibited aggressive behavior prior to vaccination showed a notable reduction in aggression post-immunization, correlating with decreased testosterone levels. However, no significant differences were found in territorial urine marking before and after treatment. Siel et al. [117] reported that immunized male dogs maintained a high specific immune response up to 150 days, with reductions in gonadal function, sexual behaviors, agonistic interactions, and territorial marking.
Adding to this body of evidence, a recent study by Lin et al. [209] compared the behavioral outcomes of GnRH immunocastration versus surgical castration in rats. Although conducted in a laboratory species, the findings are highly relevant for evaluating immunocastration approaches in companion animals. Both methods effectively suppressed sexual behaviors; however, surgically castrated animals exhibited signs of depression, anxiety, and reduced social interaction, whereas immunocastrated animals maintained emotional stability and normal sociability. No significant differences in learning and memory performance were observed between immunocastrated and intact animals. These results suggest that, beyond reproductive control, immunocastration could offer a welfare-friendly alternative by avoiding the negative emotional side effects associated with surgical sterilization [209].

7. Conclusions

Dog overpopulation represents a multifaceted challenge with significant implications for public health, animal welfare, environmental conservation, and biodiversity. Traditional strategies such as mass culling and surgical sterilization, while historically employed, face increasing ethical, social, and logistical limitations. Although surgical gonadectomy remains a highly effective and widely used tool for individual and population-level reproductive control, it has been associated with a range of potential adverse health and behavioral outcomes, including increased risks of orthopedic diseases, urinary incontinence, some cancers, and anxiety-related behaviors.
Immunocastration emerges as a viable and promising alternative to surgical sterilization. By targeting the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis through GnRH vaccination, immunocastration offers a reversible, minimally invasive, and ethically preferable approach that can be implemented on a large scale. Numerous studies across species, including recent research in dogs, have demonstrated the efficacy of immunocastration in suppressing reproductive function, lowering testosterone levels, and modifying behaviors such as roaming, sexual mounting, and intrasexual aggression, often with fewer emotional side effects compared to surgical castration.
While further long-term studies in companion animals are necessary, the current evidence suggests that immunocastration could become a key element in integrated and sustainable strategies for managing dog populations. It holds potential not only for improving animal welfare but also for addressing broader public health and environmental challenges. Its inclusion in veterinary public health initiatives, alongside responsible ownership programs and educational campaigns, could substantially advance more humane and effective approaches to dog population control.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.J.U. and D.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.J.U. and D.S.; writing—review and editing, M.L.-B. and L.S.; supervision, D.S. and L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Downes, M.; Canty, M.J.; More, S.J. Demography of the Pet Dog and Cat Population on the Island of Ireland and Human Factors Influencing Pet Ownership. Prev. Vet. Med. 2009, 92, 140–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bravo Peña, F. Ley 21.020 Sobre Tenencia Responsable de Mascotas y Animales de Compañía: Análisis a Dos Años de Su Implementación. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  3. World Health Organization. Animal Bites. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/animal-bites (accessed on 10 June 2021).
  4. Hughes, J.; Macdonald, D.W. A Review of the Interactions between Free-Roaming Domestic Dogs and Wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gompper, M.E. The Dog–Human–Wildlife Interface. In Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation; Gompper, M.E., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 9–54. ISBN 978-0-19-966321-7. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lord, K.; Feinstein, M.; Smith, B.; Coppinger, R. Variation in Reproductive Traits of Members of the Genus Canis with Special Attention to the Domestic Dog (Canis familiaris). Behav. Process. 2013, 92, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Terefe, D.A.; Seid, A.M. Non-Surgical Castration Methods to Control Stray Dog Population, a Review. Online J. Anim. Feed Res. 2019, 9, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ibarra, L.; Espínola, F.; Echeverría, M. Factores Relacionados Con La Presencia de Perros En Las Calles de La Ciudad de Santiago, Chile. Av. Cienc. Vet. 2010, 21, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Morters, M.K.; Bharadwaj, S.; Whay, H.R.; Cleaveland, S.; Damriyasa, I.M.; Wood, J.L.N. Participatory Methods for the Assessment of the Ownership Status of Free-Roaming Dogs in Bali, Indonesia, for Disease Control and Animal Welfare. Prev. Vet. Med. 2014, 116, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dürr, S.; Mindekem, R.; Kaninga, Y.; Doumagoum Moto, D.; Meltzer, M.I.; Vounatsou, P.; Zinsstag, J. Effectiveness of Dog Rabies Vaccination Programmes: Comparison of Owner-Charged and Free Vaccination Campaigns. Epidemiol. Infect. 2009, 137, 1558–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gsell, A.S.; Knobel, D.L.; Cleaveland, S.; Kazwala, R.R.; Vounatsou, P.; Zinsstag, J. Domestic Dog Demographic Structure and Dynamics Relevant to Rabies Control Planning in Urban Areas in Africa: The Case of Iringa, Tanzania. BMC Vet. Res. 2012, 8, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Humane Society. Why You Should Spay and Neuter Your Pet: Curb Pet Overpopulation and Make Your Pet Healthier. Available online: http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/why_spay_neuter.html (accessed on 15 August 2020).
  13. Soto, A. Análisis de un Problema Público no Abordado: El Caso de los Perros Vagabundos y Callejeros en Chile. Master’s Thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chavez, G.; Clementi, G.; Águila, C.; Ubilla, M.J. Determinación Del Estado de Bienestar En Perros Callejeros de Dos Centros Urbanos de Chile: -EN- Determination of the Welfare Status of Freeroaming Dogs in Two Urban Centres in Chile -FR- Détermination de l’état de Bien-Être Animal Chez Les Chiens Errants de Deux Villes Du Chili -ES-. Rev. Sci. Tech. OIE 2020, 38, 891–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Schneider, R. Observations on Overpopulation of Dogs and Cats. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1975, 167, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Coppinger, R.; Coppinger, L. The Evolution of the Basic Dog: Commensalism. In Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA; pp. 69–84. ISBN 978-0-226-11563-4.
  17. Thorne, C. Feeding Behaviour of Domestic Dogs and the Role of Experience. In The Domestic Dog: It’s Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995; pp. 103–114. ISBN 0-521-42537-9. [Google Scholar]
  18. Manteca, X. Introduccion a la etología clínica, problemas del comportamiento. In Etología Clínica Veterinaria del Perro y del Gato, 2nd ed.; Multimedica: Barcelona, Spain, 2003; p. 121. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bhalla, S.J.; Kemmers, R.; Vasques, A.; Vanak, A.T. ‘Stray Appetites’: A Socio-Ecological Analysis of Free-Ranging Dogs Living alongside Human Communities in Bangalore, India. Urban. Ecosyst. 2021, 24, 1245–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Beck, A. The Ecology of “Feral” and Free- Roving Dogs in Baltimore. In The Wild Canids: Their Systematics, Behavioral Ecology, and Evolution; Behavioral Science Series; Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York, NY, USA, 1975; ISBN 978-0-442-22430-1. [Google Scholar]
  21. Boitani, L.; Ciucci, P.; Ortolani, A. Behaviour and Social Ecology of Free-Ranging Dogs. In The Behavioural Biology of Dogs; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2007; ISBN 978-1-84593-187-2. [Google Scholar]
  22. Marr, J.S.; Beck, A.M. Rabies in New York City, with New Guidelines for Prophylaxis. Bull. N. Y Acad. Med. 1976, 52, 605–616. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Meslin, F.-X.; Briggs, D.J. Eliminating Canine Rabies, the Principal Source of Human Infection: What Will It Take? Antivir. Res. 2013, 98, 291–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Brunker, K.; Lemey, P.; Marston, D.A.; Fooks, A.R.; Lugelo, A.; Ngeleja, C.; Hampson, K.; Biek, R. Landscape Attributes Governing Local Transmission of an Endemic Zoonosis: Rabies Virus in Domestic Dogs. Mol. Ecol. 2018, 27, 773–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Álvarez, E.; Domínguez, J. Programa para el control integral de la población canina. AMMVEPE 2001, 12, 83–91. [Google Scholar]
  26. Rojas, C.A.; Lüders, C.F.; Manterola, C.; Velazco, M. La Pérdida de La Percepción al Riesgo de Zoonosis y La Figura Del Perro Comunitario. Rev. Chil. Infectol. 2018, 35, 186–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sacks, J.J.; Kresnow, M.; Houston, B. Dog Bites: How Big a Problem? Inj. Prev. 1996, 2, 52–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Overall, K.L.; Love, M. Dog Bites to Humans—Demography, Epidemiology, Injury, and Risk. J. Am. Veter Med Assoc. 2001, 218, 1923–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Keuster, T.D.; Lamoureux, J.; Kahn, A. Epidemiology of Dog Bites: A Belgian Experience of Canine Behaviour and Public Health Concerns. Vet. J. 2006, 172, 482–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gilchrist, J.; Sacks, J.J.; White, D.; Kresnow, M.-J. Dog Bites: Still a Problem? Inj. Prev. 2008, 14, 296–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ubilla, M.J. Ecoetología de perros vagabundos y asilvestrados. Análisis demográfico de la población vagabunda y callejera de la Región Metropolitana de Chile. In Proceedings of the Primer Congreso Latinoamericano de Etología Aplicada, Montevideo, Uruguay, 6–7 June 2008; p. 118. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellis, R.; Ellis, C. Dog and Cat Bites. Am. Fam. Physician 2014, 90, 239–243. [Google Scholar]
  33. Polo, G.; Calderón, N.; Clothier, S.; Garcia, R.D.C.M. Understanding Dog Aggression: Epidemiologic Aspects. J. Vet. Behav. 2015, 10, 525–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moxon, R.; Whiteside, H.; England, G.C.W. Incidence and Impact of Dog Attacks on Guide Dogs in the UK: An Update. Vet. Rec. 2016, 178, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rajshekar, M.; Blizzard, L.; Julian, R.; Williams, A.; Tennant, M.; Forrest, A.; Walsh, L.J.; Wilson, G. The Incidence of Public Sector Hospitalisations Due to Dog Bites in Australia 2001–2013. Aust. N. Zeal. J. Public Health 2017, 41, 377–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mediouni, S.; Brisson, M.; Ravel, A. Epidemiology of Human Exposure to Rabies in Nunavik: Incidence, the Role of Dog Bites and Their Context, and Victim Profiles. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hasoon, B.C.; Shipp, A.E.; Hasoon, J. A Look at the Incidence and Risk Factors for Dog Bites in Unincorporated Harris County, Texas, USA. Vet. World 2020, 13, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sudarshan, M.K.; Mahendra, B.J.; Madhusudana, S.N.; Ashwoath Narayana, D.H.; Rahman, A.; Rao, N.S.N.; X-Meslin, F.; Lobo, D.; Ravikumar, K.; Gangaboraiah. An Epidemiological Study of Animal Bites in India: Results of a WHO Sponsored National Multi-Centric Rabies Survey. J. Commun. Dis. 2006, 38, 32–39. [Google Scholar]
  39. Calderón, G.; Poveda, S.; Sosa, A.L.; Mora, N.; López Bejar, M.; Orlando, S.A.; Garcia-Bereguiain, M.A. Dog Bites as a Zoonotic Risk in Ecuador: Need for the Implementation of a One Health Approach. One Health 2023, 16, 100544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Piccart, F.; Dormaar, J.; Coropciuc, R.; Schoenaers, J.; Bila, M.; Politis, C. Dog Bite Injuries in the Head and Neck Region: A 20-Year Review. Craniomaxillofacial Trauma. Reconstr. 2019, 12, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Munnynck, K.; Van de Voorde, W. Forensic Approach of Fatal Dog Attacks: A Case Report and Literature Review. Int. J. Leg. Med. 2002, 116, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Boat, B.W.; Dixon, C.A.; Pearl, E.; Thieken, L.; Bucher, S.E. Pediatric Dog Bite Victims: A Need for a Continuum of Care. Clin. Pediatr. 2012, 51, 473–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Jakeman, M.; Oxley, J.A.; Owczarczak-Garstecka, S.C.; Westgarth, C. Pet Dog Bites in Children: Management and Prevention. BMJ Paediatr. Open 2020, 4, e000726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dias, R.A.; Baquero, O.S.; Guilloux, A.G.A.; Moretti, C.F.; de Lucca, T.; Rodrigues, R.C.A.; Castagna, C.L.; Presotto, D.; Kronitzky, Y.C.; Grisi-Filho, J.H.H.; et al. Dog and Cat Management through Sterilization: Implications for Population Dynamics and Veterinary Public Policies. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 122, 154–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Green, J.; Gibson, P. Feral Dogs. In Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage, 1st ed.; Hygnstrom, S., Timm, R., Larson, G., Eds.; University of Nebraska Cooperative Extension, Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1994; ISBN 978-0-9613015-1-4. [Google Scholar]
  46. Home, C.; Pal, R.; Sharma, R.K.; Suryawanshi, K.R.; Bhatnagar, Y.V.; Vanak, A.T. Commensal in Conflict: Livestock Depredation Patterns by Free-Ranging Domestic Dogs in the Upper Spiti Landscape, Himachal Pradesh, India. Ambio 2017, 46, 655–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Perry, M.C.; Giles, R.H. Free running dogs. Va. Wildl. 1971, 32, 17–19. [Google Scholar]
  48. Font, E.; Guillén -Salazar, F. Convivencia hombre-animal de compañia. In Los Animales en la Sociedad: Hacia un Nuevo Modelo de Convivencia; Fundación Purina: Barcelona, Spain, 1994; pp. 59–108. ISBN 978-84-88041-11-1. [Google Scholar]
  49. Acosta-Jamett, G.; Chalmers, W.S.K.; Cunningham, A.A.; Cleaveland, S.; Handel, I.G.; Bronsvoort, B.M. Urban Domestic Dog Populations as a Source of Canine Distemper Virus for Wild Carnivores in the Coquimbo Region of Chile. Vet. Microbiol. 2011, 152, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Silva-Rodríguez, E.A.; Sieving, K.E. Domestic Dogs Shape the Landscape-Scale Distribution of a Threatened Forest Ungulate. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 150, 103–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ritchie, E.G.; Dickman, C.R.; Letnic, M.; Vanak, A.T. Dogs as Predators and Trophic Regulators. In Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation; Gompper, M.E., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 55–68. ISBN 978-0-19-966321-7. [Google Scholar]
  52. Acosta-Jamett, G.; Cleaveland, S.; De C Bronsvoort, B.; Cunningham, A.; Bradshaw, H.; Craig, P. Echinococcus Granulosus Infection in Foxes in Coquimbo District, Chile. Arch. Med. Vet. 2015, 47, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Villatoro, F.J.; Naughton-Treves, L.; Sepúlveda, M.A.; Stowhas, P.; Mardones, F.O.; Silva-Rodríguez, E.A. When Free-Ranging Dogs Threaten Wildlife: Public Attitudes toward Management Strategies in Southern Chile. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 229, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Morters, M.K.; Restif, O.; Hampson, K.; Cleaveland, S.; Wood, J.L.N.; Conlan, A.J.K. Evidence-based Control of Canine Rabies: A Critical Review of Population Density Reduction. J. Anim. Ecol. 2013, 82, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Courtenay, O.; Quinnell, R.J.; Garcez, L.M.; Shaw, J.J.; Dye, C. Infectiousness in a Cohort of Brazilian Dogs: Why Culling Fails to Control Visceral Leishmaniasis in Areas of High Transmission. J. Infect DIS 2002, 186, 1314–1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. World Health Animal Organization. Stepping up Dog Population Management to Achieve Rabies Elimination. Available online: https://www.woah.org/en/article/stepping-up-dog-population-management-to-achieve-rabies-elimination (accessed on 10 June 2025).
  57. Amaku, M.; Dias, R.A.; Ferreira, F. Dinâmica Populacional Canina: Potenciais Efeitos de Campanhas de Esterilização. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 2009, 25, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Matibag, G.C.; Ohbayashi, Y.; Kanda, K.; Yamashina, H.; Kumara, W.R.B.; Perera, I.N.G.; De Silva, D.D.N.; Gunawardena, G.S.P.D.S.; Jayasinghe, A.; Ditangco, R.A.; et al. A Pilot Study on the Usefulness of Information and Education Campaign Materials in Enhancing the Knowledge, Attitude and Practice on Rabies in Rural Sri Lanka. J. Infect. Dev. Ctries. 2009, 3, 055–064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Rohlf, V.I.; Bennett, P.C.; Toukhsati, S.; Coleman, G. Why Do Even Committed Dog Owners Fail to Comply with Some Responsible Ownership Practices? Anthrozoös 2010, 23, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Philpotts, I.; Dillon, J.; Rooney, N. Improving the Welfare of Companion Dogs—Is Owner Education the Solution? Animals 2019, 9, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Matus, M.; Morales, M.; Loyola, R.; Roman, D. Estudio demográfico de la población canina del gran Santiago, 1970. Soc. Med. Vet. Chile 1974, 24, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
  62. Hurtado, M. Estudio de Algunas Características de la Población Canina de la Cuidad de Valdivia; Universidad Austral: Valdivia, Chile, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  63. Cabello, C. Estudio de la Población Canina Rural en un Sector de la Región Metropolitana; Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  64. Urcelay, S.; Di Silvestri, F. Demografía en caninos y felinos de Chile y publicaciones extranjeras. Monogr. Med. Veterinaria 1990, 12, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  65. Carvenali, R. Estudi de Algunas Características Demográficas, de Manejo de la Población Canina y Grado de Consulta Hospitalaria por Mordeduras de Perros Durante el año 2002 en el Pueblo de Alerce, Comuna de Puerto Montt; Universidad Austral: Valdivia, Chile, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ibarra, L.; Espínola, F.; Echeverría, L.M. Una Prospección a la Población de Perros Existente en las Calles de la Ciudad de Santiago, Chile. Av. Cienc. Vet. 2010, 21, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Astorga, F.; Escobar, L.E.; Poo-Muñoz, D.A.; Medina-Vogel, G. Dog Ownership, Abundance and Potential for Bat-Borne Rabies Spillover in Chile. Prev. Vet. Med. 2015, 118, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. GFK Adimark. CHILE 3D. 2018. Available online: https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2405078/cms-pdfs/fileadmin/user_upload/country_one_pager/cl/gfk_los_chilenos_y_sus_mascotas.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 6 March 2015).
  69. Ipsos Observer Chile. VIII Encuesta Sobre Actitudes Hacia el Medio Ambiente Centro de Investigación para la Sustentabilidad (CIS) de la Universidad Andrés Bello. Available online: https://media.elmostrador.cl/2019/12/PPT-UNAB-Medio-Ambiente-I-Parte.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2025).
  70. Atero, N.; Córdova-Bührle, F.; Salgado-Caxito, M.; Benavides, J.A.; Fernández, M.; Diethelm-Varela, B.; Ramos, R.; Sapiente Aguirre, C.; Trujillo, F.; Dürr, S.; et al. An Assessment of the Owned Canine and Feline Demographics in Chile: Registration, Sterilization, and Unsupervised Roaming Indicators. Prev. Vet. Med. 2024, 226, 106185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Diesel, G.; Brodbelt, D.; Laurence, C. Survey of Veterinary Practice Policies and Opinions on Neutering Dogs. Vet. Rec. 2010, 166, 455–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Urfer, S.R.; Kaeberlein, M. Desexing Dogs: A Review of the Current Literature. Animals 2019, 9, 1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Arroube, A.; Pereira, A.F. Dog Neuter, Yes or No? A Summary of the Motivations, Benefits, and Harms, with Special Emphasis on the Behavioral Aspect. Animals 2025, 15, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Howe, L.M. Surgical Methods of Contraception and Sterilization. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. McKenzie, B. Evaluating the Benefits and Risks of Neutering Dogs and Cats. CABI Rev. 2010, 5, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hopkins, S.G.; Schubert, T.A.; Hart, B.L. Castration of Adult Male Dogs: Effects on Roaming, Aggression, Urine Marking, and Mounting. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1976, 168, 1108–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hart, B.L.; Eckstein, R.A. The Role of Gonadal Hormones in the Occurrence of Objectionable Behaviours in Dogs and Cats. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 52, 331–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Maarschalkerweerd, R.J.; Endenburg, N.; Kirpensteijn, J.; Knol, B.W. Influence of Orchiectomy on Canine Behaviour. Vet. Rec. 1997, 140, 617–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Manteca, X. Otros problemas del comportamiento del perro: Problemas de comportamiento relacionados con la conducta de reproducción del macho. In Etología Clínica Veterinaria del Perro y del Gato; Multimédica: Barcelona, Spain, 2003; ISBN 978-84-932811-0-6. [Google Scholar]
  80. Mertens, P.A. Reproductive and Sexual Behavioral Problems in Dogs. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 606–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Reichler, I. Gonadectomy in Cats and Dogs: A Review of Risks and Benefits. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2009, 44, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hoffman, J.M.; Creevy, K.E.; Promislow, D.E.L. Reproductive Capability Is Associated with Lifespan and Cause of Death in Companion Dogs. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Houlihan, K.E. A Literature Review on the Welfare Implications of Gonadectomy of Dogs. J. Am. Veter Med Assoc. 2017, 250, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Warnes, C. An Update on the Risks and Benefits of Neutering in Dogs. Vet. Nurse 2018, 9, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Root Kustritz, M. Effects of Surgical Sterilization on Canine and Feline Health and on Society. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2012, 47, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Root Kustritz, M.V. Pros, Cons, and Techniques of Pediatric Neutering. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pr. 2014, 44, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Spain, C.V.; Scarlett, J.M.; Houpt, K.A. Long-Term Risks and Benefits of Early-Age Gonadectomy in Dogs. J. Am. Veter Med Assoc. 2004, 224, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Teske, E.; Naan, E.C.; Van Dijk, E.M.; Van Garderen, E.; Schalken, J.A. Canine Prostate Carcinoma: Epidemiological Evidence of an Increased Risk in Castrated Dogs. Mol. Cell. Endocrinol. 2002, 197, 251–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ru, G.; Terracini, B.; Glickman, L.T. Host Related Risk Factors for Canine Osteosarcoma. Vet. J. 1998, 156, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Root Kustritz, M.V. Determining the Optimal Age for Gonadectomy of Dogs and Cats. J. Am. Veter Med Assoc. 2007, 231, 1665–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wallace, M.S. The Ovarian Remnant Syndrome in the Bitch and Queen. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pr. 1991, 21, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Zhang, X.; Qiao, P.; Guo, Q.; Liang, Z.; Pan, J.; Wu, F.; Wang, X.; Zhang, L. High Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Level Associated with Risk of Rheumatoid Arthritis and Disease Activity. Front. Endocrinol. 2022, 13, 862849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cathey, M.; Memon, M. Nonsurgical methods of contraception in dogs and cats: Where are we now? Vet. Med. 2010, 105, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
  94. Adin, C.A. Complications of Ovariohysterectomy and Orchiectomy in Companion Animals. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Pr. 2011, 41, 1023–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Brodbelt, D.C.; Blissitt, K.J.; Hammond, R.A.; Neath, P.J.; Young, L.E.; Pfeiffer, D.U.; Wood, J.L.N. The Risk of Death: The Confidential Enquiry into Perioperative Small Animal Fatalities. Vet. Anaesth. Analg. 2008, 35, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Stone, E.A. Ovary and uterus. In Textbook of Small Animal Surgery, 3rd ed.; Slatter, D., Ed.; Elsevier Science: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 1487–1496. [Google Scholar]
  97. Heffelfinger, D.J. Ovarian Remnant in a 2-Year-Old Queen. Can. Vet. J. 2006, 47, 165–167. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  98. Jana, K.; Samanta, P.K. Sterilization of Male Stray Dogs with a Single Intratesticular Injection of Calcium Chloride: A Dose-Dependent Study. Contraception 2007, 75, 390–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Leoci, R.; Aiudi, G.; Silvestre, F.; Lissner, E.A.; Lacalandra, G.M. Alcohol Diluent Provides the Optimal Formulation for Calcium Chloride Non-Surgical Sterilization in Dogs. Acta Vet. Scand. 2014, 56, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Yoder, C.A.; Miller, L.A. Effect of GonaConTM Vaccine on Black-Tailed Prairie Dogs: Immune Response and Health Effects. Vaccine 2010, 29, 233–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Massei, G.; Miller, L.A. Nonsurgical Fertility Control for Managing Free-Roaming Dog Populations: A Review of Products and Criteria for Field Applications. Theriogenology 2013, 80, 829–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Oliveira, E.C.S.; Moura, M.R.P.; De Sá, M.J.C.; Silva, V.A.; Kastelic, J.P.; Douglas, R.H.; Marques, A.P. Permanent Contraception of Dogs Induced with Intratesticular Injection of a Zinc Gluconate-Based Solution. Theriogenology 2012, 77, 1056–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Pineda, M.H.; Hepler, D.I.; Faulkner, L.C. Chemical sterilization of animals. In Veterinary Endocrinology and Reproduction, 6th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  104. Fagundes, A.K.N.; Alves, C.E.F.; Viana, W.G.; Gonçalves, J.A. Chemical sterilization of dogs with zinc gluconate: A systematic review. Animals 2021, 11, 1613. [Google Scholar]
  105. Miller, L.A.; Rhyan, J.; Killian, G.J. Gonacon™, a versatile GNRH contraceptive for a large variety of pest animal problems. Proc. Vertebr. Pest. Conf. 2004, 21, 269–273. [Google Scholar]
  106. Killian, G.; Eisemann, J.; Wagner, D.; Werner, J.; Shaw, D.; Engeman, R.; Miller, L.A. Safety and Toxicity Evaluation of GonaConTM Immunocontraceptive Vaccine in White-Tailed Deer. Proc. Vertebr. Pest Conf. 2006, 22, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kirkpatrick, J.F.; Lyda, R.O.; Frank, K.M. Contraceptive Vaccines for Wildlife: A Review. Am. J. Rep. Immunol. 2011, 66, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Naz, R.K.; Saver, A.E. Immunocontraception for Animals: Current Status and Future Perspective. Am. J. Reprod. Immunol. 2016, 75, 426–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Skinner, S.M.; Timmons, T.M.; Schwoebel, E.D.; Dunbar, B.S. The Role of Zona Pellucida Antigens in Fertility and Infertility. Immunol. Allergy Clin. N. Am. 1990, 10, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Levy, J.K.; Friary, J.A.; Miller, L.A.; Tucker, S.J.; Fagerstone, K.A. Long-Term Fertility Control in Female Cats with GonaConTM, GnRH Immunocontraceptive. Theriogenology 2011, 76, 1517–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Munson, L.; Bauman, J.E.; Asa, C.S.; Jöchle, W.; Trigg, T.E. Efficacy of the GnRH Analogue Deslorelin for Suppression of Oestrous Cycles in Cats. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 2001, 57, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  112. Trigg, T.E.; Doyle, A.G.; Walsh, J.D.; Swangchan-uthai, T. A Review of Advances in the Use of the GnRH Agonist Deslorelin in Control of Reproduction. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 1507–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Fontaine, E. Long-term contraception in bitches using deslorelin implants: A review. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2015, 50, 63–67. [Google Scholar]
  114. Kutzler, M.; Wood, A. Non-Surgical Methods of Contraception and Sterilization. Theriogenology 2006, 66, 514–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Ajadi, T.A.; Gazal, O.S. Effect of Surgical and Immunological Castration on Haematological Variables, Reproductive Hormones and Ejaculate Characteristics in Mongrel Dogs. Niger. J. Physiol. Sci. 2016, 31, 37–42. [Google Scholar]
  116. Jung, M.-J.; Moon, Y.-C.; Cho, I.-H.; Yeh, J.-Y.; Kim, S.-E.; Chang, W.-S.; Park, S.-Y.; Song, C.-S.; Kim, H.-Y.; Park, K.-K.; et al. Induction of castration by immunization of male dogs with recombinant gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-canine distemper virus (CDV) T helper cell epitope p35. J. Vet. Sci. 2005, 6, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Siel, D.; Ubilla, M.J.; Vidal, S.; Loaiza, A.; Quiroga, J.; Cifuentes, F.; Hardman, T.; Lapierre, L.; Paredes, R.; Sáenz, L. Reproductive and Behavioral Evaluation of a New Immunocastration Dog Vaccine. Animals 2020, 10, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Herbert, C.A.; Trigg, T.E. Applications of GnRH in the Control and Management of Fertility in Female Animals. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2005, 88, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Zamaratskaia, G.; Rydhmer, L.; Andersson, H.K.; Chen, G.; Lowagie, S.; Andersson, K.; Lundström, K. Long-Term Effect of Vaccination against Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone, Using ImprovacTM, on Hormonal Profile and Behaviour of Male Pigs. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2008, 108, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Rydhmer, L.; Lundström, K.; Andersson, K. Immunocastration Reduces Aggressive and Sexual Behaviour in Male Pigs. Animal 2010, 4, 965–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Rhodes, L. New Approaches to Non-surgical Sterilization for Dogs and Cats: Opportunities and Challenges. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2017, 52, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Dunshea, F.R.; Colantoni, C.; Howard, K.; McCauley, I.; Jackson, P.; Long, K.A.; Lopaticki, S.; Nugent, E.A.; Simons, J.A.; Walker, J.; et al. Vaccination of Boars with a GnRH Vaccine (Improvac) Eliminates Boar Taint and Increases Growth Performance. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 79, 2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Zanella, R.; Zanella, E.L.; Reeves, J.J.; Hernandez, J.; Motta, A.C.D.; Avila, D.D. Características Testiculares de Touros Imunizados Com Vacina Anti-Hormônio Liberador Do Hormônio Luteinizante. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2009, 44, 1359–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Siel, D.; Vidal, S.; Sevilla, R.; Paredes, R.; Carvallo, F.; Lapierre, L.; Maino, M.; Pérez, O.; Sáenz, L. Effectiveness of an Immunocastration Vaccine Formulation to Reduce the Gonadal Function in Female and Male Mice by Th1/Th2 Immune Response. Theriogenology 2016, 86, 1589–1598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Siel, D.; Loaiza, A.; Vidal, S.; Caruffo, M.; Paredes, R.; Ramirez, G.; Lapierre, L.; Briceño, C.; Pérez, O.; Sáenz, L. The Immune Profile Induced Is Crucial to Determine the Effects of Immunocastration over Gonadal Function, Fertility, and GnRH-I Expression. Am. J. Rep. Immunol. 2017, 79, e12772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Rocha, J.M.; Ferreira-Silva, J.C.; Veloso Neto, H.F.; Moura, M.T.; Ferreira, H.N.; Silva Júnior, V.A.; Manso Filho, H.C.; Oliveira, M.A.L. Immunocastration in donkeys: Clinical and physiological aspects. Pferdeheilkunde Equine Med. 2018, 34, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Han, X.-F.; Li, J.-L.; Zhou, Y.-Q.; Ren, X.-H.; Liu, G.-C.; Cao, X.-H.; Du, X.-G.; Zeng, X.-Y. Active Immunization with GnRH-Tandem-Dimer Peptide in Young Male Rats Reduces Serum Reproductive Hormone Concentrations, Testicular Development and Spermatogenesis. Asian J. Androl. 2016, 18, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Price, E.O.; Adams, T.E.; Huxsoll, C.C.; Borgwardt, R.E. Aggressive Behavior Is Reduced in Bulls Actively Immunized against Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 81, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Janett, F.; Gerig, T.; Tschuor, A.C.; Amatayakul-Chantler, S.; Walker, J.; Howard, R.; Bollwein, H.; Thun, R. Vaccination against Gonadotropin-Releasing Factor (GnRF) with Bopriva Significantly Decreases Testicular Development, Serum Testosterone Levels and Physical Activity in Pubertal Bulls. Theriogenology 2012, 78, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Noya, A.; Ripoll, G.; Casasús, I.; Sanz, A. Effects of Immunocastration Performed at Two Live Weights on the Growth Physiology, Temperament and Testicular Development of Feral Beef Bulls. Anim. Sci. J. 2020, 91, e13307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Donovan, C.E.; Grossman, J.L.; Patton, K.M.; Lamb, S.; Bobe, G.; Kutzler, M.A. Effects of a Commercial Canine Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone Vaccination on Intact Male Llamas and Alpacas. J. Vaccines 2013, 2013, 181834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Bonneau, M.; Enright, W.J. Immunocastration in Cattle and Pigs. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1995, 42, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Einarsson, S.; Andersson, K.; Wallgren, M.; Lundström, K.; Rodriguez-Martinez, H. Short- and Long-Term Effects of Immunization against Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone, Using ImprovacTM, on Sexual Maturity, Reproductive Organs and Sperm Morphology in Male Pigs. Theriogenology 2009, 71, 302–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Einarsson, S.; Brunius, C.; Wallgren, M.; Lundström, K.; Andersson, K.; Zamaratskaia, G.; Rodriguez-Martinez, H. Effects of Early Vaccination with Improvac® on the Development and Function of Reproductive Organs of Male Pigs. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2011, 127, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Brunius, C.; Zamaratskaia, G.; Andersson, K.; Chen, G.; Norrby, M.; Madej, A.; Lundström, K. Early Immunocastration of Male Pigs with Improvac®—Effect on Boar Taint, Hormones and Reproductive Organs. Vaccine 2011, 29, 9514–9520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Brewster, V.; Nevel, A. Immunocastration with ImprovacTM Reduces Aggressive and Sexual Behaviours in Male Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2013, 145, 32–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Pinna, A.; Schivazappa, C.; Virgili, R.; Parolari, G. Effect of Vaccination against Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) in Heavy Male Pigs for Italian Typical Dry-Cured Ham Production. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Zamaratskaia, G.; Rasmussen, M.K. Immunocastration of Male Pigs—Situation Today. Procedia Food Sci. 2015, 5, 324–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Kress, K.; Weiler, U.; Schmucker, S.; Čandek-Potokar, M.; Vrecl, M.; Fazarinc, G.; Škrlep, M.; Batorek-Lukač, N.; Stefanski, V. Influence of Housing Conditions on Reliability of Immunocastration and Consequences for Growth Performance of Male Pigs. Animals 2019, 10, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Zoels, S.; Reiter, S.; Ritzmann, M.; Weiß, C.; Numberger, J.; Schütz, A.; Lindner, P.; Stefanski, V.; Weiler, U. Influences of Immunocastration on Endocrine Parameters, Growth Performance and Carcass Quality, as Well as on Boar Taint and Penile Injuries. Animals 2020, 10, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ghoneim, I.M.; Waheed, M.M.; Al-Eknah, M.M.; El-Bahr, S.M. Immunization against GnRH in the Male Camel (Camelus dromedarius): Effects on Sexual Behavior, Testicular Volume, Semen Characteristics and Serum Testosterone Concentrations. Theriogenology 2012, 78, 1102–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Turkstra, J.A.; Van Der Meer, F.J.U.M.; Knaap, J.; Rottier, P.J.M.; Teerds, K.J.; Colenbrander, B.; Meloen, R.H. Effects of GnRH Immunization in Sexually Mature Pony Stallions. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2005, 86, 247–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Janett, F.; Stump, R.; Burger, D.; Thun, R. Suppression of Testicular Function and Sexual Behavior by Vaccination against GnRH (EquityTM) in the Adult Stallion. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2009, 115, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Yu, L.; Zhang, Z.-F.; Jing, C.-X.; Wu, F.-L. Intraperitoneal Administration of Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone-PE40 Induces Castration in Male Rats. World J. Gastroenterol. 2008, 14, 2106–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Sáenz, L.; Neira-Carrillo, A.; Paredes, R.; Cortés, M.; Bucarey, S.; Arias, J.L. Chitosan Formulations Improve the Immunogenicity of a GnRH-I Peptide-Based Vaccine. Int. J. Pharm. 2009, 369, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Eşki, F.; Taşal, İ.; Mis, L.; Uslu, B.A.; Comba, B.; Bulut, G.; Şendağ, S.; Çetin, N. Experimental Investigation of the Immunocastration Efficacy of a Single Dose GnRH Vaccine in Male Rats. Reprod. Biol. 2013, 13, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Kim, Y.-H.; Park, B.-J.; Ahn, H.-S.; Han, S.-H.; Go, H.-J.; Lee, J.-B.; Park, S.-Y.; Song, C.-S.; Lee, S.-W.; Choi, I.-S. Immunocontraceptive Effects in Male Rats Vaccinated with Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone-I and -II Protein Complex. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 29, 658–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Eşki, F.; Mis, L.; Tasal, I.; Uslu, B.; Comba, B. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin; Parlar Scientific Publications: Freising, Germany, 2019; pp. 5195–5205. [Google Scholar]
  149. Fang, F.; Yang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Tao, Y.; Wang, S.; Pu, Y.; Zhang, X. Immunization of Male Mice with a New Recombinant GnRH Fusion Protein Reduces the Testicular Function. Agric. Sci. China 2009, 8, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cui, S.; Chen, Y.F.; Yue, H.N.; He, Y.Q.; McNeilly, A.S. Sexual Development and the Effects of Active Immunization against GnRH in Chinese Tanyang Ram Lambs. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2003, 77, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Gökdal, Ö.; Atay, O.; Ülker, H.; Kayaardı, S.; Kanter, M.; DeAvila, M.D.; Reeves, J.J. The Effects of Immunological Castration against GnRH with Recombinant OL Protein (Ovalbumin-LHRH-7) on Carcass and Meat Quality Characteristics, Histological Appearance of Testes and Pituitary Gland in Kıvırcık Male Lambs. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 692–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Needham, T.; Lambrechts, H.; Hoffman, L. Influence of Immunocastration Vaccine Administration Interval on Serum Androgen Concentrations and Testis Activity in Ram Lambs. Small Rumin. Res. 2019, 170, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Han, X.; Gu, L.; Xia, C.; Feng, J.; Cao, X.; Du, X.; Zeng, X.; Song, T. Effect of Immunization against GnRH on Hypothalamic and Testicular Function in Rams. Theriogenology 2015, 83, 642–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Siel, D.; Huenchullán, P.R.; Vidal, S.; Valdés, A.; Sáenz, L. Improving Beef Cattle Production: Safety and Effectiveness of New Immunocastration Vaccine. Animals 2024, 14, 2538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Zhang, X.; Song, T.; Liu, G.; Wu, J.; Zhaxi, Y.; Mustafa, S.B.; Shahzad, K.; Chen, X.; Zhao, W.; Jiang, X. GnRH Immunocastration in Male Xizang Sheep: Impacts on Rumen Microbiome and Metabolite Profiles for Enhanced Health and Productivity. Animals 2024, 14, 2942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Werner, D.; Baldinger, L.; Bussemas, R.; Büttner, S.; Weißmann, F.; Ciulu, M.; Mörlein, J.; Mörlein, D. Early Immunocastration of Pigs: From Farming to Meat Quality. Animals 2021, 11, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Miller, L.A.; Gionfriddo, J.P.; Fagerstone, K.A.; Rhyan, J.C.; Killian, G.J. ORIGINAL ARTICLE: The Single-Shot GnRH Immunocontraceptive Vaccine (GonaConTM) in White-Tailed Deer: Comparison of Several GnRH Preparations. Am. J. Rep. Immunol. 2008, 60, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Krause, S.K.; Kelt, D.A.; Gionfriddo, J.P.; Van Vuren, D.H. Efficacy and Health Effects of a Wildlife Immunocontraceptive Vaccine on Fox Squirrels. J. Wildl. Manag. 2014, 78, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Killian, G.; Kreeger, T.J.; Rhyan, J.; Fagerstone, K.; Miller, L. Observations on the Use of GonaconTM in Captive Female Elk (Cervus Elaphus). J. Wildl. Dis. 2009, 45, 184–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Huenchullan, P.; Vidal, S.; Larraín, R.; Saénz, L. Effectiveness of a New Recombinant antiGnRH Vaccine for Immunocastration in Bulls. Animals 2021, 11, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Botelho-Fontela, S.; Paixão, G.; Pereira-Pinto, R.; Vaz-Velho, M.; Pires, M.A.; Payan-Carreira, R.; Patarata, L.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Silva, A.; Esteves, A. The Effects of Different Immunocastration Protocols on Meat Quality Traits and Boar Taint Compounds in Male Bísaro Pigs. Theriogenology 2024, 214, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Feder, H.H. Hormones and Sexual Behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1984, 35, 165–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Brackett, B. Endocrinología, reproducción y lactación: Reproducción del macho en mamíferos. In Dukes Fisiología de los Animales Domésticos; Acribia: Zaragoza, Spain, 2004; pp. 777–800. ISBN 978-84-200-1134-9. [Google Scholar]
  164. Thompson, F. Endocrinología, reproducción y lactación: Reproducción de la hembra de mamífero. In Dukes Fisiología de los Animales Domésticos; Acribia: Zaragoza, Spain, 2004; pp. 801–832. ISBN 978-84-200-1134-9. [Google Scholar]
  165. Davidson, E.B.; David Moll, H.; Payton, M.E. Comparison of Laparoscopic Ovariohysterectomy and Ovariohysterectomy in Dogs. Vet. Surg. 2004, 33, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Sundburg, C.R.; Belanger, J.M.; Bannasch, D.L.; Famula, T.R.; Oberbauer, A.M. Gonadectomy Effects on the Risk of Immune Disorders in the Dog: A Retrospective Study. BMC Vet. Res. 2016, 12, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Trevejo, R.; Yang, M.; Lund, E.M. Epidemiology of Surgical Castration of Dogs and Cats in the United States. J. Am. Veter Med Assoc. 2011, 238, 898–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Commins, W.D.; Stone, C.P. Effects of Castration on the Behavior of Mammals. Psychol. Bull. 1932, 29, 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Hart, B.L. Gonadal Androgen and Sociosexual Behavior of Male Mammals: A Comparative Analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1974, 81, 383–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Templin, J.S.; Wyrosdic, J.C.; David, C.D.; Wyrosdic, B.N.; Lapp, H.E.; Bala, A.; Bartlett, A.; Khan, Z.; Rokicki, A.; Park, J.H. Peripubertal Gonadal Steroids Are Necessary for Steroid-Independent Male Sexual Behavior in Castrated B6D2F1 Male Mice. Horm. Behav. 2019, 113, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Manteca, X. Comportamiento sexual. In Etología Veterinaria, 1st ed.; Multimédica Ediciones Veterinarias: Sant Cugat del Vall, Spain, 2009; pp. 111–121. [Google Scholar]
  172. Justel, N.; Bentosela, M.; Ruetti, E. Testosterona, emoción y cognición: Estudios en animales castrados. Interdisciplinaria 2010, 27, 191–208. [Google Scholar]
  173. Davidson, J.M. Characteristics of Sex Behaviour in Male Rats Following Castration. Anim. Behav. 1966, 14, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Schuurman, T. Hormonal Correlates of Agonistic Behavior in Adult Male Rats. In Progress in Brain Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1980; Volume 53, pp. 415–420. ISBN 978-0-444-80207-1. [Google Scholar]
  175. Aronson, L.R.; Cooper, M.L. Penile Spines of the Domestic Cat: Their Endocrine-behavior Relations. Anat. Rec. 1967, 157, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Beach, F.; Buehler, M.; Dunbar, I. Development of Attraction to Estrous Females in Male Dogs. Physiol. Behav. 1983, 31, 293–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Herbert, J. The Role of the Dorsal Nerves of the Penis in the Sexual Behaviour of the Male Rhesus Monkey. Physiol. Behav. 1973, 10, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. López, H.H.; Olster, D.H.; Ettenberg, A. Sexual Motivation in the Male Rat: The Role of Primary Incentives and Copulatory Experience. Horm. Behav. 1999, 36, 176–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Gil, J.; Verona, J.; Barbosa, M. Psicobiología de las Conductas Agresivas, Anales de Psicología; Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2002; Volume 18, pp. 293–303. [Google Scholar]
  180. Knol, B.W.; Egberink-Alink, S.T. Treatment of Problem Behaviour in Dogs and Cats by Castration and Progestagen Administration: A Review. Vet. Q. 1989, 11, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Roll, A.; Unshelm, J. Aggressive Conflicts amongst Dogs and Factors Affecting Them. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 52, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Damian, J.P.; Ruiz, P.; Belino, M.; Rijo, R. Etología Clínica y Agresividad Canina en Montevideo: Implicancia de Las Razas y el Sexo. Rev. Argent. Cienc. Comport. (RACC) 2011, 3, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Kuhne, F. Kastration von Hunden aus Sicht der Tierverhaltenstherapie. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 2012, 40, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Kobelt, A.J.; Hemsworth, P.H.; Barnett, J.L.; Coleman, G.J. A Survey of Dog Ownership in Suburban Australia—Conditions and Behaviour Problems. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 82, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Bennett, P.C.; Rohlf, V.I. Owner-Companion Dog Interactions: Relationships between Demographic Variables, Potentially Problematic Behaviours, Training Engagement and Shared Activities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 102, 65–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Kubinyi, E.; Turcsán, B.; Miklósi, Á. Dog and Owner Demographic Characteristics and Dog Personality Trait Associations. Behav. Process. 2009, 81, 392–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Palestrini, C.; Mazzola, S.M.; Caione, B.; Groppetti, D.; Pecile, A.M.; Minero, M.; Cannas, S. Influence of Gonadectomy on Canine Behavior. Animals 2021, 11, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Savalli, C.; Albuquerque, N.; Vasconcellos, A.S.; Ramos, D.; De Mello, F.T.; Serpell, J.A. Characteristics Associated with Behavior Problems in Brazilian Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 234, 105213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. McGreevy, P.D.; Wilson, B.; Starling, M.J.; Serpell, J.A. Behavioural Risks in Male Dogs with Minimal Lifetime Exposure to Gonadal Hormones May Complicate Population-Control Benefits of Desexing. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0196284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Podberscek, A.L.; Serpell, J.A. The English Cocker Spaniel: Preliminary Findings on Aggressive Behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1996, 47, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Kim, H.H.; Yeon, S.C.; Houpt, K.A.; Lee, H.C.; Chang, H.H.; Lee, H.J. Effects of Ovariohysterectomy on Reactivity in German Shepherd Dogs. Vet. J. 2006, 172, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Voith, V.L.; Borchelt, P.L. Diagnosis and Treatment of Dominance Aggression in Dogs. Vet. Clin. N. Am. Small Anim. Prac. 1982, 12, 655–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. O’Farrell, V.; Peachey, E. Behavioural Effects of Ovariohysterectomy on Bitches. J. Small Anim. Pract. 1990, 31, 595–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Hsu, Y.; Sun, L. Factors Associated with Aggressive Responses in Pet Dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 123, 108–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Cannas, S.; Rigamonti, P.; Groppetti, D.; Minero, M.; Palestrini, C. Analysis of Behavior Changes in 65 Pet Dogs after Gonadectomy. J. Vet. Behav. 2013, 8, e37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Beach, F. Effects of Gonadal Hormones on Urinary Behavior in Dogs. Physiol. Behav. 1974, 12, 1005–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. De Miguel, F.J. Comunicación En El Perro. In Etología Clínica Veterinaria del Perro: Guía Práctica de Abordaje Para Médicos Veterinarios, 1st ed.; Universidad Santo Tomás: Santiago, Chile, 2014; pp. 59–79. [Google Scholar]
  198. Cafazzo, S.; Natoli, E.; Valsecchi, P. Scent-Marking Behaviour in a Pack of Free-Ranging Domestic Dogs. Ethology 2012, 118, 955–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Neilson, J.C.; Eckstein, R.A.; Hart, B.L. Effects of Castration on Problem Behaviors in Male Dogs with Reference to Age and Duration of Behavior. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 1997, 211, 180–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. McGuire, B.; Bemis, K.E. Scent Marking in Shelter Dogs: Effects of Body Size. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2017, 186, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. McGuire, B. Effects of Gonadectomy on Scent-Marking Behavior of Shelter Dogs. J. Vet. Behav. 2019, 30, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Beaver, B.V.G. Canine Behavior: Insights and Answers, 2nd ed.; Saunders/Elsevier: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-1-4160-5419-1. [Google Scholar]
  203. Basulto, R.; Milanes, C.; Rojas, A.; Fuentes, F.; Izquierdo, N.; Bertot, J.; Hernández, H.; Sánchez, D.; Calzada, L.; Junco, J. Efectos de la inmunización contra GnRh sobre la estructura y función testicular en perros adultos. Biotecnol. Apl. 2003, 20, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  204. Walker, J.; Ghosh, S.; Pagnon, J.; Colantoni, C.; Newbold, A.; Zeng, W.; Jackson, D.C. Totally Synthetic Peptide-Based Immunocontraceptive Vaccines Show Activity in Dogs of Different Breeds. Vaccine 2007, 25, 7111–7119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Bargsted, M.O. Efectos de una Vacuna Recombinante Contra la Hormona Liberadora de Gonadotrofinas (GnRH-I) en la Espermatogénesis, Esteroidogénesis y Cambios Conductuales Asociados, en Caninos Mestizos. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  206. Donovan, C.; Greer, M.; Kutzler, M. Physiologic Responses Following Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Immunization in Intact Male Dogs. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2012, 47, 403–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Liu, Y.; Tian, Y.; Zhao, X.; Jiang, S.; Li, F.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhou, J.; Fang, F. Immunization of Dogs with Recombinant GnRH-1 Suppresses the Development of Reproductive Function. Theriogenology 2015, 83, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Levy, J.K.; Miller, L.A.; Cynda Crawford, P.; Ritchey, J.W.; Ross, M.K.; Fagerstone, K.A. GnRH Immunocontraception of Male Cats. Theriogenology 2004, 62, 1116–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Lin, L.; Xu, M.; Ma, J.; Du, C.; Zang, Y.; Huang, A.; Wei, C.; Gao, Q.; Gan, S. Behavioral Assessment Reveals GnRH Immunocastration as a Better Alternative to Surgical Castration. Animals 2024, 14, 2796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Main Outcomes Evaluated in Immunocastration Research by Species.
Table 1. Main Outcomes Evaluated in Immunocastration Research by Species.
Author(s) and Publication YearSpecies and SexStudied Variables
Siel et al. [117]Dogs (males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; sperm characteristics; behavioral changes (sexual, agonistic, marking behaviors)
Rydhmer et al. [120]Pigs (males)General behavior (walking, sleeping, eating); sexual behavior (mounting); aggressive behaviors (head butts, bites); social behaviors (sniffing, shoving, oral manipulation of another pig’s ears or tail)
Siel et al. [124]Mice (females and males)Antibody levels; cytokine expression; histological analysis; serum testosterone levels
Rocha et al. [126]Equidae (donkeys, males)Serum testosterone levels; testicular volume; sperm motility; gonadal histological analysis
Price et al. [128]Cattle (males)Aggressive behaviors (initiation and participation in fights, head butts)
Janett et al. [129]Cattle (males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; body weight; scrotal circumference; physical activity
Noya et al. [130]Cattle (male)Growth performance; serum testosterone levels; plasma creatinine levels; plasma urea levels; testicular diameter; subcutaneous fat and skin thickness measurement; aggressive behavior, sexual behavior, physical activity
Einarsson et al. [134]Pigs (males)Serum testosterone levels; testicular weight; bulbourethral gland length; sperm morphology; histological study
Brunius et al. [135]Pigs (males)Antibody titer; serum testosterone levels; androstenone, skatole and indole levels in adipose tissue; serum oestradiol levels; testicular weight; bulbourethral gland length
Brewster & Nevel [136]Pigs (males)Sexual behavior (mounting); aggressive behaviors (threats, fights, head butts)
Pinna et al. [137]Pigs (males)Specific characteristics of meat intended for dried ham (sensory characteristics, weight loss due to processing, among others)
Kress et al. [139]Pigs (males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; serum cortisol levels; levels of androstenone and skatole in adipose tissue; weight of testes, epididymis, vesicular glands, bulbourethral glands, prostate, and urogenital tract; growth performance
Zoels et al. [140]Pigs (males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; testosterone concentration in feces; androstenone and skatole levels in adipose tissue; growth performance; penile injuries
Ghoneim et al. [141]Dromedary camels (males)Serum testosterone levels; testicular volume; semen characteristics; sexual behavior (libido)
Turkstra et al. [142]Equidae (ponies, males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; sperm motility; gonadal histological analysis; testicle size
Janett et al. [143]Equidae (foals, males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; sperm quality; scrotal diameter; sexual behavior (libido)
Fang et al. [149]Mice (males)Antibody levels; gonadal histological analysis; testicular weight
Siel et al. [154]Cattle (females)Antibody levels; serum progesterone levels; estrus presentation; reproductive behavior; productive parameters (weight gain)
Zhang et al. [155]Sheep (males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; rumen microbiome profile; rumen metabolite profile; body weight gain
Werner et al. [156]Pigs (males)Gonadal histological analysis; fattening performance; agonistic behavior (pushing, biting, and mounting); animal welfare (penis scratches and injuries); serum testosterone levels; androstenone and skatole levels in adipose tissue
Table 2. Summary of the main variables studied in immunocastration studies on companion animals, in alphabetical order by species and year of publication.
Table 2. Summary of the main variables studied in immunocastration studies on companion animals, in alphabetical order by species and year of publication.
Author(s) and Year of PublicationSpecies and SexStudied Variables
Levy et al. [110]Cats (females)Antibody levels; indicators of reproductive success; serum estradiol and progesterone levels
Jung et al. [116]Dogs (males)Antibody levels; gonadal histological analyses
Siel et al. [117]Dogs (males)Antibody levels; testosterone serum tests; spermiogram; agonistic, sexual, territorial marking and affiliative behavior
Basulto et al. [203]Dogs (males)Antibody levels; spermiogram; gonadal histological analyses
Walker et al. [204]Dogs (males and females)Antibody levels; serum levels of testosterone and progesterone
Bargsted [205]Dogs (males)Endocrine profile; antibody levels; gonadal histological analysis; aggressive behavior, sexual and territorial marking.
Donovan et al. [206]Dogs (males)Endocrine profile; antibody levels; testicular volume
Liu et al. [207]Dogs (males and females)Antibody levels; serum testosterone and estradiol levels; gonadal histological analysis; weight and gonadal size
Levy et al. [208]Cats (males)Antibody levels; serum testosterone levels; scrotal size; gonadal histological analyses
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ubilla, M.J.; Lopez-Bejar, M.; Siel, D.; Sáenz, L. Reproductive Control in Dogs with Emphasis on Anti-GnRH Immunocastration and Its Behavioral Effects. Vet. Sci. 2026, 13, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci13010005

AMA Style

Ubilla MJ, Lopez-Bejar M, Siel D, Sáenz L. Reproductive Control in Dogs with Emphasis on Anti-GnRH Immunocastration and Its Behavioral Effects. Veterinary Sciences. 2026; 13(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci13010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ubilla, María José, Manel Lopez-Bejar, Daniela Siel, and Leonardo Sáenz. 2026. "Reproductive Control in Dogs with Emphasis on Anti-GnRH Immunocastration and Its Behavioral Effects" Veterinary Sciences 13, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci13010005

APA Style

Ubilla, M. J., Lopez-Bejar, M., Siel, D., & Sáenz, L. (2026). Reproductive Control in Dogs with Emphasis on Anti-GnRH Immunocastration and Its Behavioral Effects. Veterinary Sciences, 13(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci13010005

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop