Literature DB >> 11106067

Tau differences between short-day responsive and short-day nonresponsive white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) do not affect reproductive photoresponsiveness.

S B Majoy1, P D Heideman.   

Abstract

In laboratory-bred rodent populations, intraspecific variation in circadian system organization is a known cause of individual variation in reproductive photoresponsiveness. The authors sought to determine whether circadian system variation accounted for individual variation in reproductive photoresponsiveness in a single, highly genetically variable population of Peromyscus leucopus recently derived from the wild. Running-wheel activity patterns of male and female mice, aged 70 to 90 days, from artificially selected lines of reproductively photoresponsive (R) and nonresponsive (NR) lines were monitored under short-day photoperiod (8 h light, 16 h dark), long-day photoperiod (16 h light, 8 h dark), and constant darkness (DD). NR mice displayed a significantly longer mean free-running period (24.08 h) in DD compared with R mice (23.75 h), due in large part to a difference between NR and R females (24.25 h vs. 23.74 h, respectively). All other entrainment characteristics (alpha, phase angle of activity) under short days, long days, and DD were similar between R and NR mice. Variation in free-running period and entrainment characteristics has been shown to affect photoresponsiveness in other rodent species by altering the manner in which the circadian system interprets short days. To determine whether variation in photoresponsiveness in P. leucopus is due to differences in free-running period instead of variation downstream from the central circadian clock in the pathway controlling photoresponsiveness, the authors exposed young R and NR mice to DD and measured the effect on reproductive organ development. If variation in free-running period affected how the circadian system of mice interpreted short days, then both R and NR mice exposed to DD should have exhibited a delay in gonadal development. Only R mice exhibited pubertal delay in DD. NR mice exhibited large paired testes, paired seminal vesicles, paired ovaries, and uterine weight typical of mice nonresponsive to short days, whereas R mice exhibited reproductive organ weight typical of mice responsive to short days. These data suggest that despite significant differences in free-running period between R and NR mice, individual variation in photoresponsiveness is not due to differences in how the circadian systems of R and NR mice interpret the LD cycle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11106067     DOI: 10.1177/074873000129001611

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Biol Rhythms        ISSN: 0748-7304            Impact factor:   3.182


  12 in total

1.  Heritable circadian period length in a wild bird population.

Authors:  Barbara Helm; Marcel E Visser
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2010-06-09       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 2.  Evolution of time-keeping mechanisms: early emergence and adaptation to photoperiod.

Authors:  R A Hut; D G M Beersma
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Variation in levels of luteinizing hormone and reproductive photoresponsiveness in a population of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus).

Authors:  Paul D Heideman; Julian T Pittman; Kristin A Schubert; Christen M R Dubois; Jennifer Bowles; Sean M Lowe; Matthew R Price
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 3.619

Review 4.  Behavioral neuroendocrinology in nontraditional species of mammals: things the 'knockout' mouse CAN'T tell us.

Authors:  Laura Smale; Paul D Heideman; Jeffrey A French
Journal:  Horm Behav       Date:  2005-06-28       Impact factor: 3.587

Review 5.  Timing as a sexually selected trait: the right mate at the right moment.

Authors:  Michaela Hau; Davide Dominoni; Stefania Casagrande; C Loren Buck; Gabriela Wagner; David Hazlerigg; Timothy Greives; Roelof A Hut
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-19       Impact factor: 6.237

6.  Variation in chronotype is associated with migratory timing in a songbird.

Authors:  Jeffrey L Rittenhouse; Ashley R Robart; Heather E Watts
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.703

7.  Heritable variation in reaction norms of metabolism and activity across temperatures in a wild-derived population of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus).

Authors:  Paul A Kaseloo; Madelyn G Crowell; Paul D Heideman
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2014-02-19       Impact factor: 2.200

8.  Photoperiod affects estrogen receptor alpha, estrogen receptor beta and aggressive behavior.

Authors:  Brian C Trainor; Michael R Rowland; Randy J Nelson
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.386

9.  Variation in nocturnality and circadian activity rhythms between photoresponsive F344 and nonphotoresponsive Sprague Dawley rats.

Authors:  Cheryl D Seroka; Cynthia E Johnson; Paul D Heideman
Journal:  J Circadian Rhythms       Date:  2008-09-09

10.  Photoperiodic Regulation of Cerebral Blood Flow in White-Footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus).

Authors:  Jeremy C Borniger; Seth Teplitsky; Surya Gnyawali; Randy J Nelson; Cameron Rink
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2016-07-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.