Biol Reprod 2009 SSR Annual Meeting Abstracts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Heideman, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Bronson, F. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Heideman, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Bronson, F. H.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Heideman, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Bronson, F. H.

Biology of Reproduction, Vol 44, 1189-1196, Copyright © 1991 by Society for the Study of Reproduction

ARTICLES

Characteristics of a genetic polymorphism for reproductive photoresponsiveness in the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus)

PD Heideman and FH Bronson
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Wild populations of Peromyscus are often composed of individuals that vary greatly in their reproductive response to photoperiod. A population of white-footed mice (P. leucopus) from Michigan (43 degrees N) was subjected to mass selection in the laboratory both for and against reproductive photoresponsiveness for four generations. The first generation of selection yielded one line of mice in which about 80% of the individuals were classified as reproductively photoresponsive (i.e., with undeveloped reproductive tracts when reared in short days, 8L: 16D) and another in which only about 20% were reproductively photoresponsive. Some and perhaps most of this difference was accounted for by changes in degree of responsiveness to photoperiod rather than by alterations in the proportion of discrete responsive vs. unresponsive phenotypes. Alteration of critical day length was not a factor. Three more generations of selection failed to change the proportions noted above significantly. Although the genetic control of reproductive photoresponsiveness is undoubtedly complex, a single variable locus may be responsible for much of the heritable variation present in this population. These results also suggest that natural populations contain genetically determined phenotypes that are intermediate between absolutely photoresponsive and absolutely unresponsive. The factors that might promote maintenance of heterogeneity of reproductive photoresponsiveness in a wild population of rodents are considered.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Integr. Comp. Biol.Home page
P. D. Heideman and J. T. Pittman
Microevolution of neuroendocrine mechanisms regulating reproductive timing in Peromyscus leucopus
Integr. Comp. Biol., May 22, 2009; (2009) icp014v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
M. Avigdor, S. D. Sullivan, and P. D. Heideman
Response to selection for photoperiod responsiveness on the density and location of mature GnRH-releasing neurons
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, May 1, 2005; 288(5): R1226 - R1236.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Biol RhythmsHome page
F. H. Bronson
Are Humans Seasonally Photoperiodic?
J Biol Rhythms, June 1, 2004; 19(3): 180 - 192.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol. Reprod.Home page
M.M. Ben Saad and D.L. Maurel
Long-Day Inhibition of Reproduction and Circadian Photogonadosensitivity in Zembra Island Wild Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
Biol Reprod, February 1, 2002; 66(2): 415 - 420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
A. M. Lorincz, M. B. Shoemaker, and P. D. Heideman
Genetic variation in photoperiodism among naturally photoperiodic rat strains
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, December 1, 2001; 281(6): R1817 - R1824.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Biol RhythmsHome page
S. B. Majoy and P. D. Heideman
Tau Differences between Short-Day Responsive and Short-Day Nonresponsive White-Footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus) Do Not Affect Reproductive Photoresponsiveness
J Biol Rhythms, December 1, 2000; 15(6): 500 - 512.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol. Reprod.Home page
P. D. Heideman, C. K. Bierl, and M. E. Galvez
Inhibition of Reproductive Maturation and Somatic Growth of Fischer 344 Rats by Photoperiods Shorter than L14:D10 and by Gradually Decreasing Photoperiod
Biol Reprod, November 1, 2000; 63(5): 1525 - 1530.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 J Biol RhythmsHome page
S. L. Goldman, K. Dhandapani, and B. D. Goldman
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Short-Day Responsiveness in Siberian Hamsters (Phodopus sungorus)
J Biol Rhythms, October 1, 2000; 15(5): 417 - 428.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
H. A. El-Bakry, W. M. Zahran, and T. J. Bartness
Photoperiodic responses of four wild-trapped desert rodent species
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, December 1, 1998; 275(6): R2012 - R2022.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol. Reprod.Home page
P. D. Heideman, R. W. Deibler, and L. M. York
Food and Neonatal Androgen Interact with Photoperiod to Inhibit Reproductive Maturation in Fischer 344 Rats
Biol Reprod, August 1, 1998; 59(2): 358 - 363.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

Home page
 J Biol RhythmsHome page
D. A. Freeman and B. D. Goldman
Photoperiod Nonresponsive Siberian Hamsters: Effect of Age on the Probability of Nonresponsiveness
J Biol Rhythms, April 1, 1997; 12(2): 110 - 121.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the Society for the Study of Reproduction.