“…(1967) and Young et aL (1965). LaSalle and White (1975) and Nagai (1975) pointed out the important positive association between weight gain and subsequent reproduction and maternal influence.…”
A group of 98 dams weaned 588 female mice to be mated and allowed to reproduce. These females were assigned at birth to be reared in a litter of eight or 14 mice. Such litters were intended to represent postnatal environments equivalent to small and large litters. However, average litter size was approximately 15 mice in this line and comparisons were more correctly those between small and average litter sizes. A slight bias, genetically in favor of females raised in large litters, was noted due to allotment. A sample of 123 females was slaughtered at 10 days of pregnancy and 325 were allowed to litter. Body weights at 12, 21 and 42 days were positively correlated with each other and with reproductive traits. Weights at 12, 21 and 42 days were consistently larger (P<.01) for females raised in small litters. Sexual maturity (days to vaginal opening) was negatively associated with weights to 42 days. Mice raised in litters of eight were earlier maturing (2.11 days) and reached maturity at heavier weights (1.61 g). These differences (P<.01) indicate that age at maturity could not be completely explained by weight differences. An advantage (P<.05)in corpora lutea numbers (.93) was found for females from small litters. The advantage for number of embryos at 10 days of pregnancy was only .48 and was not significant. Females from small litters had .31 and .23 more mice born and mice born alive, respectively, but these differences were not significant. Heritability estimates for litter size born, numbers born alive and litter weight were .34, .
“…(1967) and Young et aL (1965). LaSalle and White (1975) and Nagai (1975) pointed out the important positive association between weight gain and subsequent reproduction and maternal influence.…”
A group of 98 dams weaned 588 female mice to be mated and allowed to reproduce. These females were assigned at birth to be reared in a litter of eight or 14 mice. Such litters were intended to represent postnatal environments equivalent to small and large litters. However, average litter size was approximately 15 mice in this line and comparisons were more correctly those between small and average litter sizes. A slight bias, genetically in favor of females raised in large litters, was noted due to allotment. A sample of 123 females was slaughtered at 10 days of pregnancy and 325 were allowed to litter. Body weights at 12, 21 and 42 days were positively correlated with each other and with reproductive traits. Weights at 12, 21 and 42 days were consistently larger (P<.01) for females raised in small litters. Sexual maturity (days to vaginal opening) was negatively associated with weights to 42 days. Mice raised in litters of eight were earlier maturing (2.11 days) and reached maturity at heavier weights (1.61 g). These differences (P<.01) indicate that age at maturity could not be completely explained by weight differences. An advantage (P<.05)in corpora lutea numbers (.93) was found for females from small litters. The advantage for number of embryos at 10 days of pregnancy was only .48 and was not significant. Females from small litters had .31 and .23 more mice born and mice born alive, respectively, but these differences were not significant. Heritability estimates for litter size born, numbers born alive and litter weight were .34, .
“…fur hohere Zunahrnen eine Erhohung der WurfgroBe beobachtet (MCARTHUR 1944;FALCONER 1953FALCONER , 1973RAHNEFELD et al 1962;EISEN et al 1973;MCLELLAN und FRAHM 1973;WILSON 1973;BAKKER 1974). Auf der anderen Seite stellten EISEN et al (1973), BRADFORD (1971), LASALLE et al (1974) sowie HETZEL und NICHOLAS (1982 keine oder nur eine geringe Erhohung der WurfgroBe bei der Selektion fur erhohtes Wachstum fest.…”
Direct and maternal genetic effects were evaluated for maturing patterns of body weight in mice using a crossfostering design. Crossfostering was performed in one group using dams from populations selected for rapid growth rate (M16 and H6) and their reciprocal F1. crosses. A second crossfostering group consisted of dams from the respective control populations (ICR and C2) and their reciprocal F1. 's. Population differences were partitioned into direct and maternal effects due to genetic origin, correlated selection responses, heterosis and cytoplasmic or sex-linked effects. Degree of maturity was calculated at birth, 12, 21, 31 and 42 days of age by dividing body weight at each age by 63-day weight. Absolute and relative maturing rates were calculated in adjacent age intervals between birth and 63 days. Genetic origin effects (ICR vs. C2; M16 vs. H6) were significant for many maturity traits, with average direct being more important than average maternal genetic effects. In general, correlated responses to selection for maturity traits were larger in the M16 population (M16 vs. ICR) than in the H6 population (H6 vs. C2) and correlated responses in average direct effects were larger than average maternal effects. Positive correlated responses in average direct effects were found for relative maturing rates at all ages and for absolute maturing rates from 31 to 63 days. Apparent correlated responses in degree of maturity were negative for M16 and H6. However, further analysis suggested that the correlated response for degree of maturity in H6 may be positive at later ages and negative at earlier ages. Direct and maternal heterosis for degree of maturity was positive in the selected and control crosses. Absolute and relative maturing rates showed positive heterosis initially, followed by negative heterosis. Reciprocal differences due to the cytoplasm or sex-linkage were not important for patterns of maturity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.