Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:33:16.614Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ovulation and post-ovulational losses in strains of mice selected from large and small litters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Nigel Bateman
Nigel Bateman
Affiliation:
A.R.C., Animal Breeding Research Organisation, Edinburgh 9, Scotland
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

This paper describes the aspects of fertility that had been affected by selection on litter size. For twelve generations previously the mice used as parents were chosen because they had been born in large or small litters. At the end of this time, litters in the fertile strain averaged 11·1 young born alive, while the less fertile strain averaged 5·5.

It was found that male fertility and inherent viability of the young had nothing to do with the response although neither was excluded by the method of selection. Several contributions, however, were made by the females, who were affected not only in ovulation rate, but also in their control of pre-implantational losses, foetal mortality and mortality of the newly born.

Females from the less fertile strain were particularly prone to pre-implantational loss of eggs. It remains to be shown whether these were due to fertilizational or implantational failure.

The incidence of earlier and later embroyonic losses in females of the same strain were uncorrelated—Utters that were depleted early were neither more nor less inclined to be depleted later.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , September 1966 , pp. 229 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

References

REFERENCES

Bowman, J. C. & Roberts, R. C. (1958). Embryonic mortality in relation to ovulation rate in the house mouse. J. exp. Biol. 35, 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). The genetics of litter size in mice. J. cell, comp. Physiol. Suppl. 1, 56, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1963). Qualitatively different responses to selection in opposite directions. Chapter in Statistical Genetics and Plant breeding (Hanson, W. D. & Robinson, H. F., eds.), pp. 487–490. Washington: N.A.S.-N.R.C. Publication No. 982.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S., Edwards, R. G., Fowler, R. E. & Roberts, R. C. (1961). Analysis of differences in the numbers of eggs shed by the two ovaries of mice during natural oestrus or after superovulation. J. Beprod. Fert. 2, 418–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. & Roberts, R. C. (1960). Effect of inbreeding on ovulation rate and foetal mortality in mice. Genet. Res. 1, 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fekete, E. (1950). Polyovular follicles in the C58 strain of mice. Anat. Rec. 108, 699–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finn, C. A. (1964). Influence of the male on litter size in mice. J. Beprod. Fert. 7, 107–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1949). Table XIII. Statistical Tables. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Foote, R. H. & Bratton, R. W. (1952). The influence of antibiotics on delayed returns in artificial breeding. J. Dairy Sci. 35, 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grüneberg, , Hans, (1952). The Genetics of the Mouse, pp. 14–15. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Hancock, J. L. (1962). Fertilization in farm animals. A.B.A. 30, 285–310.Google Scholar
Harper, M. J. K. (1964). Observations on amount and distribution of prenatal mortality in a strain of albino rats. J. Beprod. Fert. 7, 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, A. & Michie, D. (1954). Transmigration of unborn mice. Nature, Lond. 174, 844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1960). The effects on litter size of crossing lines of mice inbred without selection. Genet. Res. 1, 239–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. (1946). Statistical Methods, p. 199. Ames: Iowa State College Press.Google ScholarPubMed