Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-qxsvm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-02T15:00:07.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differences in food resource allocation in a long-term selection experiment for litter size in mice 1. Developmental trends in body weight and food intake against time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

W. M. Rauw ,
P. Luiting ,
M. W. A. Verstegen ,
O. Vangen  and
P. W. Knap
W. M. Rauw
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, 1432 Ås, Norway
P. Luiting
Affiliation:
PIC International Group Ltd, Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
M. W. A. Verstegen
Affiliation:
Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen Institute of Animal Science, PO Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands
O. Vangen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Agricultural University of Norway, PO Box 5025, 1432 Ås, Norway
P. W. Knap
Affiliation:
PIC International Group Ltd, Roslin Institute, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, UK
Get access

Abstract

Differences in the metabolic resource situation between non-reproductive male and female mice of a line selected for high litter size at birth (average of 22 born per litter) and a non-selected control line (average of 10 born per litter) were investigated in two replicates. Brody curves were fitted to individual data on body weight against age and linear regression lines were fitted to individual data on cumulative food intake against age. Mature body weight and mature daily food intake were higher in selected mice than in control mice and higher in males than in females. Selected males matured faster than selected females and control mice. In general, differences in growth and food intake curves between species or lines can mostly be explained by differences in mature size. Therefore, parameters were subsequently scaled by individual estimates of mature body weight. Differences that remain after scaling are a consequence of what have been called specific genetic factors. Scaled mature food intake was higher in selected mice than in control mice and higher in females than in males. Scaled maturation rate was higher in selected mice than in control mice and higher in selected males than in selected females. This shows that in the present study, specific genetic factors have been detected for both body weight and food intake, which suggests that selection for increased litter size has disproportionally changed the resource allocation pattern.

Keywords

genetic size scalinglitter sizeresource allocationselection
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , August 2000 , pp. 31 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bakker, H. 1974. Effect of selection for relative growth rate and body weight of mice on rate, composition and efficiency of growth. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Beilharz, R. G., Luxford, B. G. and Wilkinson, J. L. 1993. Quantitative genetics and evolution: is our understanding of genetics sufficient to explain evolution? Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 110: 161–170.Google Scholar
Brody, S. 1945. Bioenergetics and growth. Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
Bünger, L. and Schönfelder, E. 1984. Zur Lebensleistung wachstumsselektierter Labormausweibchen -Wachstumsverlauf. Probleme der Angewandten Statistik 11: 185–196.Google Scholar
De la Fuente, L. F. and San Primitivo, F. 1985. Selection for large and small litter size of the 1st 3 litters in mice. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 17: 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, E. J., Lang, B. J. and Legates, J. E. 1969. Comparison of growth functions within and between lines of mice selected for large and small body weight. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 39: 251–260.Google Scholar
Jandel, . 1992. SigmaPlot Scientific Graphing System user’s manual, version 5.0. Jandel Scientific Inc., San Rafael CA.Google Scholar
Kastelic, M., Salehar, A., Drobnic, M. and Kovac, M. 1996. Mature size and maturing rate in RoC57BL/6 and RoNMRI lines of mice. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 113: 545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, B. J. and Legates, J. E. 1969. Rate, composition and efficiency of growth in mice selected for large and small body weight. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 39: 306–314.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luiting, P. 1998. The role of genetic variation in feed intake and its physiological aspects: results from selection experiments. In Regulation of feed intake. Proceedings of the fifth Zodiac Symposium, Wageningen, The Netherlands (ed. van der Heide, D., Huisman, E. A., Kanis, E., Osse, J. W. M. and Verstegen, M.W.A.), pp. 75–87. CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
Luiting, P., Vangen, O., Rauw, W. M., Knap, P. W. and Beilharz, R. G. 1997. Physiological consequences of selection for growth. Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Vienna, Austria, p. 40.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. C. and Siegel, P. B. 1983. A review of genetical and physiological effects of selection in meat-type poultry. Animal Breeding Abstracts 51: 87–94.Google Scholar
Malik, R. C. 1984. Genetic and physiological aspects of growth, body composition and feed efficiency in mice: a review. Journal of Animal Science 58: 577–590.Google Scholar
Mgheni, M. and Christensen, K. 1985. Selection experiment on growth and litter size in rabbits. III. Two-way selection response for litter size. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica 35: 287–294.Google Scholar
Narayan, A. D. and Rawat, S. 1986. Effect of selection for litter size on body weight in mice. Indian Veterinary Medical Journal 10: 82–87.Google Scholar
Ogink, N. W. M. 1993. Genetic size and growth in goats. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Owens, F. N., Gill, D. R., Secrist, D. S. and Coleman, S. W. 1995. Review of some aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3152–3172.Google Scholar
Parks, J. R. 1982. A theory of feeding and growth in animals. Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
Rauw, W. M., Luiting, P., Verstegen, M. W. A., Vangen, O. and Knap, P. W. 2000. Differences in food resource allocation in a long-term selection experiment for litter size in mice. 2. Developmental trends in body weight against food intake. Animal Science 71: 39–47.Google Scholar
Rickleffs, R. E. 1985. Modification of growth and development of muscles of poultry. Poultry Science 64: 1563–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, P. B. and Dunnington, E. A. 1987. Selection for growth in chickens. CRC Critical Reviews in Poultry Biology 1: 1–24.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1985. SAS user’s guide: statistics, version 5. Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1965. A relation between mature weight and time taken to mature in mammals. Animal Production 7: 203–220.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1968. Time taken to mature in relation to mature weight for sexes, strains and species of domesticated mammals and birds. Animal Production 20: 157–169.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1980. Live-weight growth from embryo to adult in domesticated mammals. Animal Production 31: 223–235.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1982. Theory of growth and feed efficiency in relation to maturity in body weight. Proceedings of the second world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Madrid, vol. 5, pp. 218–230.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. 1985. Use of genetic size-scaling in evaluation of animal growth. Journal of Animal Science 61: (suppl. 2) 118–141.Google Scholar
Taylor, St C. S. and Fitzhugh, H. A. 1971. Genetic relationships between mature weight and time taken to mature within a breed. Journal of Animal Science 33: 726–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, St C. S. and Murray, J. I. 1987. Genetic aspects of mammalian growth and survival in relation to body size. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. M., Parks, J. R. and Perry, D. 1985. Food intake, growth and body composition in Australian Merino sheep selected for high and low weaning weight. 1. Food intake, food efficiency and growth. Animal Production 40: 55–70.Google Scholar
Timon, V. M. and Eisen, E. J. 1969. Comparison of growth curves of mice selected and unselected for postweaning gain. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 39: 345–351.Google Scholar
Vangen, O. 1993. Results from 40 generations of divergent selection for litter size in mice. Livestock Production Science 37: 197–211.Google Scholar