Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T06:21:05.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Heterosis’ in F1 mice in a cold environment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

S. A. Barnett  and
Elizabeth M. Coleman
S. A. Barnett
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The University, Glasgow
Elizabeth M. Coleman
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, The University, Glasgow

Extract

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.

The effect of hybridity on reproduction in mice has been studied in two environmental temperatures: 21° C. (‘normal’) and −3° C. (unfavourable). Mice of inbred strains A2G and C57BL are maintained as permanent breeding stocks in each of the two temperatures. In each temperature the two strains were crossed, and the reproduction of F1 pairs, to the age of 28 weeks, compared with that of the parent strains.

At 21° C. the expected superior fertility of the F1 mice was found: the number of litters produced was not affected, but there were more young produced per pair. The number of young per pair reared to 3 weeks was about twice the mean of the parent strains at the same temperature.

At −3° C. the difference was greater. The F1 pairs produced more and larger litters than the parent strains, and deaths between birth and weaning at 3 weeks were few. The number of young per pair reared to 3 weeks was nearly five times the mean of the parent strains. Part of the superiority of the F1 mice, at both temperatures, was due to the fact that they began to breed earlier.

Despite the larger litters produced by the F1 pairs, at 21° C. the mean weight of the F2 young at the age of 3 weeks was intermediate between those of the parent strains. At −3° C. it was the same as that of the heavier parent strain, namely, A2G.

As a further test of resistance to cold, F1 mice born in the warm environment were transferred to the cold at the age of 22 days and there placed each alone in a cage, with nesting material. In these conditions they had a higher survival rate than the young of either of the parent strains. They also grew faster than the A2G mice.

The F1 mice were not only more fertile than the inbred mice, but also more uniform in breeding performance. This difference was especially marked in the less favourable environment.

These observations are in conformity with the view that heterosis is a consequence of heterozygosis; and that it depends on an enhanced ability to withstand disturbances of developmental and physiological equilibria.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , February 1960 , pp. 25 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

References

REFERENCES

Ashoub, M. R., Biggers, J. D., McLaren, A. & Michie, D. (1958). The effect of the environment on phenotypic variability. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 149, 192–203.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. (1956). Endothermy and ectothermy in mice at −3° C. J. exp. Biol. 33, 124–133.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Coleman, E. M. (1960). The effect of low environmental temperature on the reproductive cycle of female mice. J. Endocrin. (in the press).Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A., Coleman, E. M. & Manly, B. M. (1960). Mortality, growth and liver glycogen in young mice exposed to cold. Quart. J. exp. Physiol. (in the press).Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Manly, B. M. (1954). Breeding of mice at −3° C. Nature, Land., 173, 355.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Manly, B. M. (1956). Reproduction and growth of mice of three strains, after transfer to −3° C. J. exp. Biol. 33, 325–329.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Manly, B. M. (1958). Adaptation to cold in young mice. Physiol. Bohemoslov. 7, 19–28.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. & Manly, B. M. (1959). Effect of low environmental temperature on the breeding performance of mice. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 151, 87–105.Google Scholar
Butler, L. (1958). The inheritance of litter size, body weight, and variability, in a cross between inbred strains of mice. Canad. J. Zool. 36, 969–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chai, C. K. (1956). Analysis of quantitative inheritance of body size in mice. 2. Gene action and segregation. Genetics, 41, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobzhansky, Th. (1950). Genetics of natural populations. 19. Origin of heterosis through natural selection in populations of Drosophila pseudo-obscura. Genetics, 35, 288–302.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Th. & Levene, H. (1955). Genetics of natural populations. 24. Developmental homeostasis in natural populations of Drosophila pseudo-obscura. Genetics, 40, 797–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, H. P. (1955). Controlled heterozygosity in livestock. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 144, 192–203.Google ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. & King, J. W. B. (1949). Large and small mice. Heredity., 3, 380.Google Scholar
Gates, W. H. (1925). Litter size, birth weight, and early growth rate of mice (Mus musculus). Anat. Rec. 29, 183–193.Google Scholar
Grüneberg, H. (1954). Variation within inbred strains of mice. Nature, Land., 173, 674–676.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1949). Ric. Sci., Suppl.54–55.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1954). The Biochemistry of Genetics. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). On the biochemistry of heterosis, and the stabilization of polymorphism. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 144, 217–220.Google Scholar
Jinks, J. L. & Mather, K. (1955). Stability in development of heterozygotes and homo-zygotes. Proc. roy. Soc. B, 143, 561–578.Google Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1954). Genetic Homeostasis. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
McLaren, A. & Michie, D. (1954). Are inbred strains suitable for bio-assay? Nature, Land., 173, 686–688.Google Scholar
McLaren, A. & Michie, D. (1956). Variability of response in experimental animals. J. Genet. 54, 440–455.Google Scholar
Marshak, A. (1936). Growth differences in reciprocal hybrids and cytoplasmic influence on growth in mice. J. exp. Zool. 72, 497–510.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1956). Acclimatization to high temperatures in inbred and outbred Drosophila subobscura. J. Genet. 54, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tebb, G. & Thoday, J. M. (1954). Stability in development and relational balance of X-chromosomes in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature, Land., 174, 1109.Google Scholar
Thoday, J. M. (1953). Components of fitness. Symp. Soc. exp. Biol. 7, 96–113.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1942). Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature, Land., 150, 563–565.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1957). The Strategy of the Genes. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar