Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 2406501

A third component causing random variability beside environment and genotype. A reason for the limited success of a 30 year long effort to standardize laboratory animals?

Abstract

This paper is a review of experiments, performed in our laboratory during the past 20 years, designed to analyse the significance of different components of random variability in quantitative traits in laboratory rats and mice. Reduction of genetic variability by using inbred strains and reduction of environmental variability by highly standardized husbandry in laboratory animals did not remarkably reduce the range of random variability in quantitative biological traits. Neither did a tremendous increase of the environmental variability (i.e., living in a natural setting) increase it. Therefore, the postnatal environment cannot be that important as the source of random variability. Utilizing methods established in twin research, only 20-30% of the range of the body weight in inbred mice were directly estimated to be of environmental origin. The remaining 70-80% were due to a third component creating biological random variability, in addition to the genetic and environmental influences. This third component is effective at or before fertilization and may originate from ooplasmic differences. It is the most important component of the phenotypic random variability, fixing its range and dominating the genetic and the environmental component. The Gaussian distribution of the body weights observed, even in inbred animals, seems to be an arrangement supporting natural selection rather than the consequence of heterogeneous environmental influences. In a group of inbred rats, the males with the highest chance of parenting the next generation were gathered in the central classes of the distribution of the body weight.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

K Gärtner. 1990. A third component causing random variability beside environment and genotype. A reason for the limited success of a 30 year long effort to standardize laboratory animals?. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367790780890347

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Detection of two porcine circovirus type 2 genotypic groups in United States swine herds.

In late 2005, sporadic cases of an acute onset disease of high mortality were observed in 10- to 16-week-old growing pigs among several swine herds of the United States. Tissues from the affected pigs in Kansas, Iowa, and North Carolina were examined, and porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) was detected consistently among these tissues. Phylogenetically, PCV2 can be divided into two major genotypic groups, PCV2-group 1 and PCV2-group 2. Whereas PCV2-group 1 isolates were detected in all the diseased animals, only two of the diseased animals harbored PCV2-group 2 isolates. This observation is important because PCV2-group 1 isolates had never been reported in the United States before (GenBank as of May 16, 2006), and they are closely related to the PCV2-group 1 isolates that have been described in Europe and Asia, previously. Our analysis revealed that each genotypic group contains a distinct stretch of nucleotide or amino acid sequence that may serve as a signature motif for PCV2-group 1 or PCV2-group 2 isolates.

Animal Husbandry↗

Performance of gestating sows in bedded hoop barns and confinement stalls.

The effects of gestation housing systems on sow and litter performance were evaluated for 2.5 yr in southwest Iowa. Gestation housing system treatments were as follows: 1) individual gestation stalls in a mechanically ventilated confinement building with a partially slatted floor and a manure flush system and 2) group pens with individual feed stalls in deep-bedded, naturally ventilated hoop barns. In all, 957 litters from 353 sows were evaluated. Number of pigs born alive per litter differed for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.002). Sows gestated in hoop barns gave birth to more live pigs per litter (10.0 +/- 0.2 pigs) than sows gestated in stalls (9.3 +/- 0.2 pigs). Preweaning mortality was not different for the 2 housing treatments (P = 0.70). Cross-fostering was done to equalize litter size within 24 h of birth, which resulted in an equal number of weaned pigs per sow (P = 0.50) regardless of gestation housing treatment. The weaning-to-breeding interval was different (P = 0.01), with sows kept in stalls (4.3 +/- 0.6 d) returning to estrus sooner than sows gestated in hoop barns (6.0 +/- 0.6 d). These results indicate that gestating sows can be housed as groups in deep-bedded hoop barns equipped with individual feeding stalls and will perform comparably to gestating sows housed in confinement systems with individual gestation stalls.

Animal Husbandry↗