Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T11:23:16.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in body compositions, growth and food intakes between mice which have been selected for a small or large body size

Effect of plane of neonatal nutrition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

Garry J. Rucklidge
Garry J. Rucklidge
Affiliation:
Rowett Research Institute, Greenburn Road, Bucksburn, Aberdeen AB2 9SB
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Q-strain mice selected for high-line (QLF) or low-line (QSC) body-weights at 6 weeks of age were culled to litters of two or eight (QLF-2, QLF-8, QSC-2, QSC-8) at birth andwere suckled in these groups until 19 d of age.

2. Body-weights were measured daily for all groups and body compositions compared at birth and 19 and 42 d of age. Food intakes and urinary and faecal nitrogen were measured during metabolism trials between 19 and 42 d.

3. QLF-2 and QSC-2 mice grew faster than the corresponding groups of eight until 19 d of age. They also deposited more fat as a percentage of total gain.

4. In the period 19–42 d the influence of genetic selection reappeared and was manifest in a slowing of growth rates of QLF-2 and QSC-2 animals so that by 42 d of age therewere no differences in body-weight between the groups within a line.

5. During the period 19–42 d the total food intakes of each group within a line did not differ although, on the basis of food intake per unit metabolic body-weight (g/kg body-weight0.75 per d) QLF-2 and QSC-2 ate less food than QLF-8 and QSC-8respectively.

6. The differences in body-weight at 19 d between groups were largely overcome by the increased contribution of protein and water to the weight gain of the groups of eight duringthe post-weaning period.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 341 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1982

References

REFERENCES

Falconer, D. S. (1973). Genet Res., Camb. 22, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kielanowski, J. (1972). In Festskrift til Knut Brierem, p. 111 [Spildo, L. S.Homb, T. and Hvidsten, H., editors]. Oslo: Mariendals Boktrykkeri A. S. Gjøvidk.Google Scholar
Kownacki, M. & Keller, J. (1978). Genetica Polonica 19, 339.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1962). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 156, 326.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A. & Widdowson, E. M. (1974). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 185, 1.Google Scholar
Pullar, J. D. & Webster, A. J. F. (1977). Br. J. Nutr. 35, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reeds, P. J., Cadenhead, A., Fuller, M. F., Lobley, G. E. & McDonald, J. D. (1980). Br. J. Nutr. 43, 445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucklidge, G. J. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 46, 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucklidge, G. J. & McKenzie, J. D. (1980). Lab. Anim. 14, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, J., Dobbing, J. & Gratrix, C. (1979). Lancet ii, 503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanier, M. W. & Mount, L. E. (1972). Br. J. Nutr. 28, 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1960). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 152, 188.Google Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1963). Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 158, 329.Google Scholar
Winick, M. & Noble, A. (1965). Devl. Biol. 12, 451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winick, M. & Noble, A. (1966). J. Nutr. 89, 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar