Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:56:45.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Histological observations on foetal resorption in copper-deficient rats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. McC. Howell  and
G. A. Hall
J. McC. Howell
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
G. A. Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Liverpool
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

1. Twenty-six rats were fed a diet of milk treated with hydrogen sulphide together with copper-free mineral and vitamin supplements; fourteen of these rats were used as controls and were given 500 μg Cu per rat per week. Seven other rats were fed a commercial diet.

2. Mating to stock males commenced when the rats had been fed the diets for 6 weeks, and they were killed from the 10th to the 16th days of pregnancy.

3. The average number of placental sites was 17.9 in stock, 10.4 in control and 11.8 in deficient rats. Spontaneously resorbing sites were seen in three stock, seven control and six deficient animals.

4. The foetuses of the stock and control animals grew normally but in the Cu-deficient rats normal development ceased on the 13th day of pregnancy when the foetal tissues were seen to be disintegrating. Necrosis of the placenta was seen on the 15th day of pregnancy and until then blood islands were present.

5. Lesions were not seen in the maternal mammary glands, ovaries or pituitary glands.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1969 , pp. 47 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Dutt, B. & Mills, C. F. (1960). J. comp. Path. 70, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, H. M. & Burr, G. O. (1927). Mem. Univ. Calif. 8, 1.Google Scholar
Hall, G. A. & Howell, J. McC. (1969). Br. J. Nutr. 23, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, J. McC., Thompson, J. N. & Pitt, G. A. J. (1964). J. Reprod. Fertil. 7, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCosker, P. J. (1967). Br. J. Nutr. 21, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. & Wang, Y. C. (1947). Br. J. Nutr. 1, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purves, H. D. & Griesbach, W. E. (1951). Endocrinology 49, 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telford, I. R., Woodruff, C. S. & Linford, R. H. (1962). Am. J. Anat. 110, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urner, J. A. (1931). Anat. Rec. 50, 175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar