Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T19:53:46.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproductive performance over repeated parities of lines of mice selected for appetite, lean growth and fatness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

F. D. Brien  and
W. G. Hill
F. D. Brien
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JN
W. G. Hill
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JN
Get access

Abstract

Female reproductive performance over four parities was studied for lines of mice selected for one three criteria: appetite (A), total lean mass (P), or proportion of fat (F). Female mice were first bred 8 weeks of age, and thereafter at intervals of about 7 weeks until fourth parity when they were dissected in late pregnancy to measure components of litter size.

The high A lines had higher litter sizes at the first three parities and higher ovulation rates, numbers of implantation sites and live foetuses at the fourth parity than the low A lines. The high P lines were also higher than the low P lines for each of these traits. In contrast, litter sizes and ovulation rates differed little between the high and low F lines. Fitting body weight as a covariate removed the high-low differences in ovulation rate and litter size between the P lines, but not all the differences between the A lines.

Pre-implantation survival at the fourth parity was slightly lower in the high than in low A and in high than in low P lines. Differences in post-implantation survival were very small. No component of prenatal survival differed substantially at fourth parity between the high and low F lines.

Differences in fertility at each parity and the percentages of females surviving to the end of the study were small. At each litter, dams of the high A lines produced heavier total weights of litters at 12 and 21 days than dams of the low A lines and the corresponding high-low differences in the P lines were larger. There were only small differences in these traits between the F lines. When litter size, fertility and survival were summed over parities, the average total number of young produced per female was substantially higher in the high than in the low A lines (5·0 young born alive or dead) and the P lines (7·2), but the high-low difference was small in the F lines (2-0). For all lines, litter size at first parity gave a reliable indication of reproductive rate during a major portion of the reproductive lifespan.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , June 1986 , pp. 397 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1986

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

Biggers, J. D., Finn, C. A. and McLaren, Anne. 1962. Long-term reproductive performance of female mice. II. Variation of litter size with parity. J. Reprod. Fert. 3: 313–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, S. C. and Hill, W. G. 1985. Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice. III. Correlated responses: growth, body composition, food intake and efficiency and catabolism. Genet. Res. 46: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bogyo, T. P. and Becker, W. A. 1963. Exact confidence intervals for genetic heritability estimated from paternal half-sib correlations. Biometrics 19: 494–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brien, F. D. 1985. Genetic and physiological studies relating appetite, lean growth and fatness to reproductive performance in mice. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Brien, F. D., Sharp, Gillian L., Hill, W. G. and Robertson, A. 1984. Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice. II. Correlated responses in reproduction. Genet. Res. 44: 73–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, I. Von, Willeke, H. and Pirchner, F. 1984. Two-way within-family and mass selection for 8-week body weight in different mouse populations. Genet. Res. 43: 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D. F., Legates, J. E. and Cockerham, C. C. 1959. Maternal influence on body weight. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 519–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, E. J. 1974. The laboratory mouse as a mammalian model for the genetics of growth. Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod., Madrid. Vol. I, pp. 467–492. Editorial Garsi.Google Scholar
Eisen, E. J. and Saxton, A. M. 1984. Effects of concurrent lactation and postpartum mating on reproductive performance in mice selected for large litter size. J. Anim. Sci. 59: 1224–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, M., Smith, W. C., Henderson, Ruth, Whittemore, C. T. and Laird, R. 1983. Comparative performance and body composition of control and selection line Large White pigs. 2. Feeding to appetite for a fixed time. Anim. Prod. 36: 407–413.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1947. Milk production in mice. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 37: 224–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd ed. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Fekete, Elizabeth. 1950. Polyovular follicles in the C58 strain of mice. Anat. Rec. 108: 699–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finn, C. A. 1963. Reproductive capacity and litter size in mice: effect of age and environment. J. Reprod. Fert. 6: 205–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, R. E. and Edwards, R. G. 1960. The fertility of mice selected for large or small body size. Genet. Res. 1: 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanrahan, J. P. and Eisen, E. J. 1970. Effect of selection for 12-day litter weight on lactational performance in mice. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 23: 401–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G. and Webb, A. J. 1982. Genetics of reproduction in the pig. In Control of Pig Reproduction (ed. Cole, D. J. A. and Foxcroft, G. R.), pp. 541–564. Butterworths, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent, H. A. 1960. Polyovular follicles and multinucleate ova in the ovaries of young mice. Anat. Rec. 137: 521–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liljedahl, L. E. 1974. Effects of heterozygosity in relation to ageing in female mice. Proc. Work. Symp. Breed. Eval. Crossing Expts. Farm Anim., Zeisl. pp. 81–91.Google Scholar
McLaren, Anne and Michie, D. 1954. Transmigration of unborn mice. Nature, Lond. 174: 844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, C. P. 1981. Selection for efficient lean growth in a pig herd. Aust. J. agric. Res. 32: 681–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G., Smith, C, Makower, M. and Bird, P. J. W. N. 1982. An economic appraisal of pig improvement in Great Britain. 1. Genetic and production aspects. Anim. Prod. 35: 215–224.Google Scholar
Nagai, J., Harris, D. L. and McAllister, A. J. 1980. Growth, feed efficiency and lifetime performance of crosses between lines selected for nursing ability and/or adult weight in mice. Theor. appl. Genet. 58: 59–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. S. 1971. The Ovarian Cycle of Mammals. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Rapp, K. G. and Hedrich, H. J. 1974. Phenotypic interrelations among reproductive characteristics of HAN NMRI-mice. Z. Versuchstierk. 16: 197–205.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R. C. 1961. The lifetime growth and reproduction of selected strains of mice. Heredity, Lond. 16: 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. C. 1965. Some contributions of the laboratory mouse to animal breeding research. Parts I and II. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 33: 339–353, 515–526.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. 1979. Side effects of selection for growth in laboratory animals. Livest. Prod. Sci. 6: 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, G. L., Hill, W. G. and Robertson, A. 1984. Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice. I. Responses in selected traits. Genet. Res. 43: 75–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomita, S., Hayao, T., Uchida, H. and Sawada, T. 1976. [Lifetime reproductive performance and lifespan of SPF C3H mice reared under a single pair mating system.] Expl. Anim. 25: 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallinga, J. H. and Barker, H. 1978. Effect of longterm selection for litter size in mice on lifetime reproduction rate. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 1563–1571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar