Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T03:24:56.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

C57BL/6J mouse superovulation: schedule and age optimization to increase oocyte yield and reduce animal use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2021

Sofia Lamas Open the ORCID record for Sofia Lamas [Opens in a new window] ,
Júlio Carvalheira ,
Fátima Gartner  and
Irina Amorim
Sofia Lamas*
Affiliation:
i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Portugal Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular – IBMC Rua Alfredo Allen 208, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal
Júlio Carvalheira
Affiliation:
Institute of Biomedical Science Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Portugal Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources (CIBIO-InBio), University of Porto, Vairão, Portugal
Fátima Gartner
Affiliation:
Glycobiology in Cancer, IPATIMUP/ICBAS/i3S, Porto, Portugal Institute of Biomedical Science Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Portugal
Irina Amorim
Affiliation:
Glycobiology in Cancer, IPATIMUP/ICBAS/i3S, Porto, Portugal Institute of Biomedical Science Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Portugal
*
Author for correspondence: Sofia Lamas. i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Portugal. Tel: +351 226074979 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Superovulation protocols have been described for different mouse strains, however the numbers of animals used are still high and still little information is known about hormone administration schedules and estrous cycle phases. In this study, we aimed to optimize a superovulation protocol by injecting 5 IU of pregnant mare serum gonadotropin followed by 5 IU of hCG 48 h later, using three different schedules related to the beginning of the dark cycle (3, 5 and 7 pm) in a light cycle of 7 am to 7 pm, with light on at 7 am. C57BL/6J mice at 3, 4 and 5 weeks of age were used and the estrous cycle phase for times of PMSG and hCG injections was also analyzed. Total oocyte number was counted in the morning after hCG injection. Hormones given at 3 weeks of age at 3 pm (59 ± 15 oocytes) and 7 pm (61 ± 10 oocytes) produced a significantly higher oocyte number compared with oocytes numbers collected from females at the same age at 5 pm (P = 0.0004 and <0.0001 respectively). Females at 4 and 5 weeks of age produced higher numbers of oocytes when superovulated at 7 pm. No statistical differences between females at different phases of the estrous cycle were found. These results showed that in C57BL/6J mice, hormones should be given at 3 or 7 pm for females at 3 weeks of age, however older females should be superovulated closer to the beginning of the dark cycle to reduce female mouse use and increase the numbers of oocytes produced per female.

Keywords

AgeC57BL/6JEstrous cycleScheduleSuperovulation
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , June 2021 , pp. 199 - 203
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Behringer, R, Gertsenstein, M, Nagy, KV & Nagy, A (2016). Selecting female mice in estrus and checking plugs. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols, 2016, pdb. prot092387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braden, A (1957). The relationship between the diurnal light cycle and the time of ovulation in mice. J Exp Biol 34, 177–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronson, FH (2001). Puberty in female mice is not associated with increases in either body fat or leptin. Endocrinology 142, 4758–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caligioni, CS (2009). Assessing reproductive status/stages in mice. Curr Protocol Neurosci 48, A.4I.1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertzeid, G & Storeng, R (1992). Adverse effects of gonadotrophin treatment on pre- and postimplantation development in mice. J Reprod Fertil 96, 649–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D (1984). Weight and age at puberty in female and male mice of strains selected for large and small body size. Genet Res 44, 47–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortier, AL, Lopes, FL, Darricarrère, N, Martel, J & Trasler, JM (2008). Superovulation alters the expression of imprinted genes in the midgestation mouse placenta. Hum Mol Genet 17, 1653–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, JG, Barthold, S, Davisson, M, Newcomer, CE, Quimby, FW & Smith, A (2006). The Mouse in Biomedical Research: Normative Biology Husbandry and Models, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Gates, AH (1956). Viability and developmental capacity of eggs from immature mice treated with gonadotrophins. Nature 177, 754–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gates, AH & Bozarth, JL (1978). Ovulation in the PMSG-treated immature mouse: effect of dose, age, weight, puberty, season and strain (BALB/c, 129 and C129F1 hybrid) 1. Biology of Reproduction 18, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaytan, F, Morales, C, Leon, S, Heras, V, Barroso, A, Avendaño, MS, Vazquez, MJ, Castellano, JM, Roa, J & Tena-Sempere, M (2017). Development and validation of a method for precise dating of female puberty in laboratory rodents: the puberty ovarian maturation score (Pub-Score). Scientific Reports 7, 46381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, B, Costantini, F & Lacy, E (1986). Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: A Laboratory Manual.Google Scholar
Hoogenkamp, H & Lewing, P (1982). Superovulation in mice in relation to their age. Veterinary Quarterly 4, 47–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolbe, T, Landsberger, A, Manz, S, Na, E, Urban, I & Michel, G (2015). Productivity of superovulated C57BL/6J oocyte donors at different ages. Lab Animal 44, 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legge, M & Sellens, MH (1994). Optimization of superovulation in the reproductively mature mouse. J Assist Reprod Genet 11, 312–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lim, YT, Moon, SY, Lee, JY & Chang, YS (1985). A study on the estrus cycle and superovulation of the mouse.Google Scholar
Luo, C, Zuñiga, J, Edison, E, Palla, S, Dong, W & Parker-Thornburg, J (2011). Superovulation strategies for six commonly used mouse strains. Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS 50, 471–8.Google Scholar
Market-Velker, BA, Zhang, L, Magri, L S, Bonvissuto, AC & Mann, MRW (2009). Dual effects of superovulation: loss of maternal and paternal imprinted methylation in a dose-dependent manner. Human Molecular Genetics 19, 36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, C, Acosta-Martinez, M, Dubois, S L, Wolfe, A, Radovick, S, Boehm, U & Levine, JE (2010). Timing and completion of puberty in female mice depend on estrogen receptor α-signaling in kisspeptin neurons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 22693–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redina, O, Amstislavsky, SY & Maksimovsky, L (1994). Induction of superovulation in DD mice at different stages of the oestrous cycle. Reproduction 102, 263–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sugiyama, F, Kajiwara, N, Hayashi, S, Sugiyama, Y & Yagami, K (1992). Development of mouse oocytes superovulated at different ages. Laboratory animal science 42, 297–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Tarín, JJ, Pérez-Albalá, S, Gómez-Piquer, V, Hermenegildo, C & Cano, A (2002). Stage of the estrous cycle at the time of pregnant mare’s serum gonadotropin injection affects pre-implantation embryo development in vitro in the mouse. Molecular Reproduction and Development 62, 312–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Auwera, I & D’Hooghe, T (2001). Superovulation of female mice delays embryonic and fetal development. Hum Reprod 16, 1237–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, B-J, Xue, H-Y, Chen, L-P, Dai, Y-F, Guo, J-T & Li, X-H (2013). Effect of PMSG/hCG superovulation on mouse embryonic development. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 12, 1066–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuan, R, Meng, Q, Nautiyal, J, Flurkey, K, Tsaih, S-W, Krier, R, Parker, MG, Harrison, DE & Paigen, B (2012). Genetic coregulation of age of female sexual maturation and lifespan through circulating IGF1 among inbred mouse strains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8224–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar