Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:00:28.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sources of variation in myofibre number within and between litters of pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

C. M. Dwyer  and
N. C. Stickland
C. M. Dwyer
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Basic Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London NW1 0TU
N. C. Stickland
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Basic Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London NW1 0TU
Get access

Abstract

A study of the determinants of inter- and intra-litter variation in muscle fibre number was carried out on five litters of Large White piglets. Fresh frozen, whole mid-belly sections of m. semitendinosus were stained to demonstrate acid-stable myosin adenosine triphosphatase activity. From these sections it was possible to identify which fibres had developed as primary and which as secondary fibres. Estimations of total muscle fibre number, total primary fibre number and ratio of secondary fibres to primary fibres were made for each animal. Results demonstrated that primary fibre number varied between litters (P<0·01) and was responsible for the variation in total muscle fibre number (P < 005) between litters since there was no significant variation in secondary: primary ratio. Within-litter differences in total fibre number could be attributed to both the secondary: primary ratio and primary fibre number, in almost equal contributions. However, when only the largest and smallest extremes of the litters were compared, variation in fibre number was due to the significant difference in the secondary: primary ratio (P<0·01). Taken as a whole, the results appear to show that primary fibre number is responsible for all the variation in muscle fibre number between litters, and also makes a significant contribution, with secondary: primary fibre ratio, to the variation present within a litter. The factors responsible for variations in primary and secondary fibre numbers are discussed.

Keywords

litter traitsmyofibrilspigs
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , June 1991 , pp. 527 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1991

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

Ashmore, C. R., Addis, P. B. and Doerr, L. 1973. Development of muscle fibres in the fetal pig. Journal of Animal Science 36: 1088–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashmore, C. R., Robinson, D. W., Rattray, P. V. and Doerr, L. 1972. Biphasic development of muscle fibers in the fetal lamb. Experimental Neurology 37: 241–255.Google Scholar
Dwyer, C. M. and Stickland, N. C. 1989. The determinants of inter- and intra-litter variations in muscle fibre number in the pig. Journal of Anatomy 167: 264 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Goldspink, G. and Ward, P. 1979. Changes in rodent fibre types during postnatal growth, undernutrition and exercise. Journal of Physiology 296: 453–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guth, L. and Samaha, F. J. 1970. Research note: procedure for the histochemical demonstration of actomyosin ATPase. Experimental Neurology 28: 365–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handel, S. E. and Stickland, N. C. 1987. Muscle cellularity and birth weight. Animal Production 44: 311–317.Google Scholar
Handel, S. E. and Stickland, N. C. 1988. Catch-up growth in pigs: a relationship with muscle cellularity. Animal Production 47: 291–295.Google Scholar
Harris, A. J., Duxson, M. J., Fitzsimmons, R. B. and Rieger, F. 1989. Myonuclear birthdates distinguish the origins of primary and secondary myotubes in embryonic mammalian skeletal muscle. Development 107: 771–784.Google Scholar
Hegarty, P. v. J. and Allen, C. E. 1978. Effect of pre-natal runting on the post-natal development of skeletal muscles in swine and rats. Journal of Animal Science 46: 1634–1640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luff, A. R. and Goldspink, G. 1970. Total number of fibers in the muscles of several strains of mice. Journal of Animal Science 30: 891–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaren, A. and Mitchie, D. 1960. Control of prenatal growth in mammals. Nature, London 187: 363–365.Google Scholar
McLennan, I. S. 1983. Neural dependence and independence of myotube production in chick hindlimb muscles. Developmental Biology 98: 287–294.Google Scholar
Miller, L. R., Garwood, V. A. and Judge, M. D. 1975. Factors affecting porcine muscle fiber type, diameter and number Journal of Animal Science 41: 66–77.Google Scholar
Perry, J. S. and Rowell, J. G. 1969. Variations in foetal weight and vascular supply along the uterine horn of the pig. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 19: 527–534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royston, J. P., Flecknell, P. A. and Wootton, R. 1982. New evidence that the intrauterine growth retarded piglet is a member of a discrete subpopulation. Biology of the Neonate 42: 100–104.Google Scholar
Staun, H. 1963. Various factors affecting number and size of muscle fibres in the pig. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 13: 293–322.Google Scholar
Stickland, N. C. and Goldspink, G. 1973. A possible indicator muscle for the fibre content and growth characteristics of porcine muscle. Animal Production 16: 135–146.Google Scholar
Stickland, N. C. and Handel, S. E. 1986. The numbers and types of muscle fibres in large and small breeds of pigs. Journal of Anatomy 147: 181–189.Google Scholar
Stickland, N. C., Widdowson, E. M. and Goldspink, G. 1975. Effects of severe energy and protein deficiencies on the fibres and nuclei in skeletal muscles of pigs. British Journal of Nutrition 34: 421–428.Google Scholar
Swatland, H. J. 1973. Muscle growth in the fetal and neonatal pig. Journal of Animal Science 37: 536–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, S. S. and Stickland, N. C. 1991. Why are slow and fast muscles differentially affected during prenatal undernutrition? Muscle and Nerve In press.Google Scholar
Wigmore, P. M. C. and Stickland, N. C. 1983. Muscle development in large and small pig fetuses. Journal of Anatomy 137: 235–245.Google ScholarPubMed
Wilson, S. J., ROSS, J. J. and Harris, A. J. 1988. A critical period for the formation of secondary myotubes defined by prenatal undernourishment in rats. Development 102: 815–821.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wootton, R., McFadyen, I. R. and Cooper, J. E. 1977. Measurement of placental bloodflow in the pig and its relation to placental and foetal weight. Biology of the Neonate 31: 333–339.Google Scholar