Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:17:00.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and environmental control of foetal and placental growth in the mouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

J. C. McCarthy
J. C. McCarthy
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh
Get access

Summary

Birth weight was recorded in the first and second litters of six inbred strains of mice and of all possible crosses between them. The mean birth weight of F1 young was significantly greater than that of inbred young in most cases; in no case were they significantly lighter than inbred young at birth.

Foetal weight and placental weight were recorded on the 17th day post coitum in the first litters of four strains and of two pairs of reciprocal crosses. F1 foetuses were 13–16% heavier than inbred foetuses on crossing four strains. F1 placentae were about 15% heavier than inbred placentae on crossing three strains. Crossbreeding did not affect placental weight in the fourth strain. The significance of these findings is discussed.

Analyses of data from individual strains and crosses showed that foetal weight was affected by the number of implants in the same uterine horn and independently by the number in the whole litter. The two independent effects, local and systemic respectively, tended to decrease foetal weight as litter size increased. The independent local effect of litter size on placental weight was different and tended to increase placental weight slightly as the number of implants in the same uterine horn increased.

Three different instances of maternal effects on foetal and placental growth were observed.

The effects of the litter and the mother on foetal growth are discussed in relation to the physiological basis of environmental variation in pre-natal growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 1965 , pp. 347 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1965

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

REFERENCES

Amoroso, E. C., 1952. Placentation. In chap. 15 of Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, Ed. Parkes, A. S.. Longmans, Green and Co., London.Google Scholar
Barcroft, J., 1944. Nutritional functions of the placenta. Proc. Nutr. Soc., 2: 14–18.Google Scholar
Billington, W. D., 1964. Influence of immunological dissimilarity of mother and foetus on size of placenta in mice. Nature (Lond.), 202: 317–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickinson, A. G., 1960. Some genetic implications of maternal effects–an hypothesis of mammalian growth. J. agric. Sci., 54: 378–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckstein, P., McKeown, T., & Record, R. G., 1955. Variation and placental weight according to litter size in the guinea-pig. J. Endocrin., 12: 108–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everitt, G. C., 1964. Maternal undernutrition and retarded foetal development in Merino sheep. Nature (Lond.), 201: 1341–1342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S., 1955. Patterns of response in selection experiments with mice. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol., 20: 178–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gates, A. H., Doyle, L. L., & Noyes, R. W., 1961. A physiological basis for heterosis in hybrid mouse fetuses. Amer. Zool., 1: 449–450.Google Scholar
Hafez, E. S. E., 1963. Symposium on growth: physio-genetics of prenatal and postnatal growth. J. Anim. Sci., 22: 779–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, J., & Marshall, F. H. A., 1952. The life cycle. In chap. 23 of Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, Ed. Parkes, A. S.. Longmans, Green and Co., London.Google Scholar
Healy, M. J. R., McLaren, A., & Michie, D., 1960. Foetal growth in the mouse. Proc. roy. Soc., B, 153: 367–379.Google Scholar
Huckabee, W. E., 1962. Uterine blood flow. Amer. J. Obstet. Gynec., 84: 1623–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huggett, A. St. G., & Hammond, J., 1952. Physiology of the placenta. In chap. 16 of Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, Ed. Parkes, A. S.. Longmans, Green and Co., London.Google Scholar
McCance, R. A., 1962. Food, growth and time. Lancet, II (no. 7257); 621–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J. C., 1963. Analysis of heterosis in mouse crosses. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. C., 1965a. The effect on litter size of crossing inbred strains of mice. Genetics, 51: 217–222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J. C., 1965 b. The effects of concurrent lactation on litter size and prenatal mortality in an inbred strain of mice. J. Reprod. Fertil., 9: 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, A., 1965. Genetic and environmental effects on foetal and placental growth in mice. J. Reprod. Fertil., 9: 79–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaren, A., & Michie, D., 1959. The spacing of implantations in the mouse uterus. Mem. Soc. Endocrinol., 6: 65–74.Google Scholar
Reynolds, S. R. M., 1949. Physiology of the Uterus. 2nd ed.New York, Hoeber.Google Scholar
Sugiyama, T., 1961. Morphological studies on the placenta of mice of various ages and strains. I. Variation in fetal and placental weight at term. Ada Sch. med. Univ. Kioto, 37: 139–148.Google ScholarPubMed
Wallace, L. R., 1948. The growth of lambs before and after birth in relation to the level of nutrition. J. agric. Sci., 31: 367–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar