Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T10:18:28.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice: II. Correlated responses in reproduction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Forbes D. Brien ,
Gillian L. Sharp ,
William G. Hill  and
Alan Robertson
Forbes D. Brien
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN
Gillian L. Sharp
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN
William G. Hill
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN
Alan Robertson
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JN

Summary

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.

Female reproductive performance is reported in mice selected for ten generations for one of three criteria: either appetite (A), fat percentage (F) or total lean mass (P). For each criterion lines were selected for high (H) or low (L) performance, with contemporary unselected controls (C). In the A and P lines, litter size changed in the direction of the selected criterion, the changes being larger and more rapidly established in the A than in the P lines. At generation 10, the differences in litter size between high and low lines were 2·6 live young born in the A lines, and 1·0 live young born in the P lines. The differences in 6-week weight between the high and low lines were 3·5 g in the A lines, 6·5 g in the P lines. Changes in ovulation rate were the primary reason for changes in litter size, the differences between the high and low lines being 3·8 corpora lutea for the A lines, and 3·1 corpora lutea for the P lines. Fitting body weight at mating as a covariate within lines in the analysis of ovulation rate and live foetus number removed the differences between the high and low selected P lines, but not those in the A lines. The high and low selected A and P lines did not differ in prenatal survival. There were no consistent differences in litter size, ovulation rate or pre-natal survival in the F lines.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , August 1984 , pp. 73 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

REFERENCES

Bowman, J. C. & Roberts, R. C. (1958). Embryonic mortality in relation to ovulation rate in the house mouse. Journal of Experimental Biology 35, 138–143.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. (1969). Genetic control of ovulation rate and embryo survival in mice. I. Response to selection. Genetics 61, 905–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, G. E. (1971). Growth and reproduction in mice selected for rapid body weight gain. Genetics 69, 499–512.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1953). Selection for large and small size in mice. Journal of Genetics 51, 470–501.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1973). Replicated selection for body weight in mice. Genetical Research 22, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. & Roberts, R. C. (1960). Effect of inbreeding on ovulation rate and foetal mortality in mice. Genetical Research 1, 422–430.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. E. & Edwards, R. G. (1960). The fertility of mice selected for large or small body size. Genetical Research 1, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, H. A. (1960). Polyovular follicles and multinucleate ova in the ovaries of young mice. Anatomical Record 137, 521–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Land, R. B. (1970). Genetic and phenotypic relationships between ovulation rate and body weight in the mouse. Genetical Research 15, 171–182.Google Scholar
Land, R. B. & Falconer, D. S. (1969). Genetic studies of ovulation rate in the mouse. Genetical Research 13, 25–46.Google Scholar
Macarthur, J. W. (1944). Genetics of body size and related characters. II. Satellite characters associated with body size in mice. American Naturalist 78, 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macarthur, J. W. (1949). Selection for small and large body size in the house mouse. Genetics 34, 194–209.Google Scholar
Mclaren, A. & Michie, D. (1954). Transmigration of unborn mice. Nature 174, 844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mccarthy, J. C. (1982). The laboratory mouse as a model for animal breeding: a review of selection for increased body weight and litter size. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid 5, 66–83.Google Scholar
Rahnefeld, G. W., Comstock, R. E., Singh, M. & Na Puket, S. R. (1966). Genetic correlation between growth rate and litter size in mice. Genetics 54, 1423–1429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R. C. (1965). Some contributions of the laboratory mouse to animal breeding research. Parts I and II. Animal Breeding Abstracts 33, 339–353, 515–526.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1979). Side effects of selection for growth in laboratory animals. Livestock Production Science 6, 93–104.Google Scholar
Sharp, G. L., Hill, W. G. & Robertston, A. (1984). Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice. I. Responses in selected traits. Genetical Research 43, 75–92.Google Scholar