| Literature DB >> 21283594 |
Madhukar Shivajirao Dama1, Negi Mahendra Pal Singh, Singh Rajender.
Abstract
Adaptive theory predicts that mothers would be advantaged by adjusting the sex ratio of their offspring in relation to their offspring's future reproductive success. In the present study, we tested the effect of housing mice under crowded condition on the sex ratio and whether the fat content of the diet has any influence on the outcome of pregnancies. Three-week-old mice were placed on the control diet (NFD) for 3 weeks. Thereafter the mice were allotted randomly to two groups of 7 cages each with 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 mice in every cage to create increasing crowding gradient and fed either NFD or high fat diet (HFD). After 4 weeks, dams were bred and outcomes of pregnancy were analyzed. The average dam body weight (DBW) at conception, litter size (LS) and SR were significantly higher in HFD fed dams. Further, male biased litters declined with increasing crowding in NFD group but not in HFD. The LS and SR in NFD declined significantly with increasing crowding, whereas only LS was reduced in HFD group. We conclude that female mice housed under overcrowding conditions shift offspring SR in favor of daughters in consistent with the TW hypothesis and high fat diet reduces this influence of overcrowding.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21283594 PMCID: PMC3026815 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016296
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The summary (Mean ± SD) of dam body weight, litter size and sex ratio from NFD and HFD groups.
| Variables | Crowdings | no of dams (n) | Diets | |
| NFD | HFD | |||
| Dam body weight | 1 | 4 | 20.25±2.06 | 22.65±1.28 |
| 2 | 6 | 20.38±1.85 | 23.12±1.47 | |
| 3 | 8 | 21.15±1.88 | 22.51±2.34 | |
| 4 | 10 | 20.85±0.84 | 23.07±1.72 | |
| 5 | 12 | 21.26±1.33 | 22.83±1.45 | |
| 6 | 14 | 20.06±0.85 | 23.24±0.44 | |
| 7 | 16 | 21.21±1.28 | 22.85±1.65 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Litter size | 1 | 4 | 7.50±1.29 | 8.50±1.91 |
| 2 | 6 | 8.17±0.75 | 8.67±1.03 | |
| 3 | 8 | 6.75±0.89 | 8.25±1.49 | |
| 4 | 10 | 7.20±1.23 | 8.40±0.70 | |
| 5 | 12 | 6.00±2.13 | 7.92±1.38 | |
| 6 | 14 | 5.14±0.66 | 6.29±1.14 | |
| 7 | 16 | 4.69±1.20 | 6.13±1.93 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sex ratio | 1 | 4 | 0.52±0.14 | 0.50±0.07 |
| 2 | 6 | 0.50±0.13 | 0.46±0.10 | |
| 3 | 8 | 0.49±0.15 | 0.53±0.14 | |
| 4 | 10 | 0.46±0.12 | 0.49±0.11 | |
| 5 | 12 | 0.42±0.20 | 0.52±0.17 | |
| 6 | 14 | 0.36±0.18 | 0.51±0.19 | |
| 7 | 16 | 0.31±0.18 | 0.49±0.27 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The regression coefficient for rate of change in the variables with crowding is presented as b.
Analysis of variance summary for dam body weight, litter size, sex ratio and proportion of male biased litters from NFD and HFD groups.
| Source of variation (SV) | Sum of squares (SS) | Degrees of freedom (DF) | Mean square (MS) | F-ratio |
|
|
| |||||
| Diet | 132.70 | 1 | 132.70 | 64.08 | 0.000 |
| Crowding | 4.71 | 6 | 0.78 | 0.38 | 0.891 |
| Diet x Crowding | 15.17 | 6 | 2.53 | 1.22 | 0.300 |
| Error | 260.95 | 126 | 2.07 | - | - |
| Total | 438.56 | 139 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Diet | 44.03 | 1 | 44.03 | 23.72 | 0.000 |
| Crowding | 165.63 | 6 | 27.60 | 14.87 | 0.000 |
| Diet x Crowding | 4.89 | 6 | 0.82 | 0.44 | 0.852 |
| Error | 233.84 | 126 | 1.86 | - | - |
| Total | 466.14 | 139 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Diet | 0.11 | 1 | 0.11 | 3.63 | 0.059 |
| Crowding | 0.21 | 6 | 0.04 | 1.13 | 0.346 |
| Diet x Crowding | 0.18 | 6 | 0.03 | 0.98 | 0.442 |
| Error | 3.95 | 126 | 0.03 | - | - |
| Total | 4.65 | 139 | - | - | - |
|
| |||||
| Diet | 0.000 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.060 | 0.812 |
| Crowding | 0.006 | 6 | 0.001 | 16.54 | 0.002 |
| Diet x Crowding | 0.000 | 6 | 0.000 | - | - |
| Error | 0.000 | 0 | - | - | - |
| Total | 0.006 | 13 | - | - | - |
Figure 1Dam body weight at conception and outcomes of pregnancy in NFD and HFD groups.
a) Dam body weight (b = 0.03 vs. 0.02, both P<0.05), b) Litter size (b = −0.30 vs. −0.26, both P<0.01), c) Percent male biased litters (b = −4.29, P<0.01vs. −0.36, P>0.05) and d) Sex ratio (b = −0.02, P<0.01 vs. 0.00, P>0.05). Squares represent NFD, crosses represent HFD, broken and solid lines are linear trends through NFD and HFD datasets, respectively.