Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-92wsb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-15T23:45:55.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Muscle cellularity and birth weight

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

S. E. Handel  and
N. C. Stickland
S. E. Handel
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Edinburgh EH9 1QH
N. C. Stickland
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Royal Veterinary College, Royal College Street, London NW1 0TU
Get access

Abstract

A study of the effects of low birth weight on muscle cellularity was performed on 48 pedigree Large White pigs selected, from a total of 17 litters, on the basis of their weight at birth. Where possible, the largest male (mean birth weight of 1544 g), smallest male (1135 g), and runt (776 g) littermates were chosen. Fresh frozen, whole mid belly, sections of m. semitendinosus and samples of m. trapezius from each animal were stained for the demonstration of acid pre-incubated myosin adenosine triphosphatase. The use of this stain demonstrated groups of positively stained, slow-contracting, myofibres which were each surrounded by a compliment of negatively stained, fast-contracting, fibres which together constituted ‘metabolic bundles’. The positions of metabolic bundles are indicative of the presence of single primary myofibres in the foetal muscle, all the other myofibres in the metabolic bundles being derived from subsequently formed secondary fibres. Determination of total myofibre number and primary fibre number were made for m. semitendinosus together with an estimation of the secondary to primary fibre-number ratios for both this muscle and for m. trapezius. Low birth weight was associated with a permanently reduced total muscle fibre number, proportionately in the order of 0·19 (P < 0·001) between large and runt littermates. A reduced muscle fibre number was not always associated with low birth weight, but when this was the case it was generated through a reduced secondary to primary fibre-number ratio (P < 0·01). Primary fibre number was not significantly affected in low birth-weight pigs except in extreme cases of runting.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 311 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ashmore, C. R., Addis, P. B. and Doerr, L. 1973. Development of muscle fibers in the fetal pig. Journal of Animal Science 36: 1088–1093.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashmore, C. R., Robinson, D. W., Rattray, P. V. and Doerr, L. 1972. Biphasic development of muscle fibers in the fetal lamb. Experimental Neurology 37: 241–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bedi, K. S., Birzgalis, A. R., Mahon, M., Smart, J. L. and Wareham, A. C. 1982. Early life undernutrition in rats. 1. Quantitative histology of skeletal muscles from underfed young and refed adult animals. British Journal of Nutrition 47: 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beermann, D. H., Cassens, R. G. and Hausman, G. J. 1978. A second look at fiber type differentiation in porcine skeletal muscle. Journal of Animal Science 46: 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chiakulas, J. J. and Pauly, J. E. 1965. A study of postnatal growth of skeletal muscle in the rat. Anatomical Record 152: 55–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, A. S. 1972. Postnatal changes in the histochemical fibre types of porcine skeletal muscle. Journal of Anatomy 113: 213–240.Google Scholar
Davies, D. P., Platts, P., Pritchard, J. M. and Wilkinson, P. W. 1979. Nutritional status of light-for-date infants at birth and its influence on early postnatal growth. Archives of Disease in Childhood 54: 703–706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enesco, M. and Leblond, C. P. 1962. Increase in cell number as a factor in the growth of the organs and tissues of the young male rat. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 10: 530–562.Google Scholar
Everitt, G. C. 1968. Prenatal development in uniparous animals with particular reference to the influence of maternal nutrition in sheep. In Growth and Development of Mammals (ed. Lodge, G. A. and Lamming, G. E.), pp. 131–157. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
Flecknell, P. A., Wootton, R. and Royston, J. P. 1981. Pathological features of intrauterine growth retardation in the piglet: differential effects on organ weights. Diagnostic Histopathology 4: 295–298.Google ScholarPubMed
Guth, L. and Samaha, F. J. 1970. Research note: procedure for the histochemical demonstration of actomyosin ATPase. Experimental Neurology 28: 365–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handel, S. E. and Stickland, N. C. 1984. Muscle cellularity and its relationship with birthweight and growth. Journal of Anatomy 136: 726 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Hegarty, P. V. J. and Allen, C. E. 1978. Effect of pre-natal runting on the post-natal development of skeletal muscle in swine and rats. Journal of Animal Science 46: 1634–1640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hooper, A. C. B. 1982. Genetic influences on muscle growth. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility 3: 113 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
Kugelberg, E. 1976. Adaptive transformation of rat soleus motor units during growth. Histochemistry and contraction speed. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 27: 269–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, A. R. and Goldspink, G. 1970. Total number of fibers in muscles of several strains of mice. Journal of Animal Science 30: 891–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, L. R., Garwood, V. A. and Judge, M. D. 1975. Factors affecting porcine muscle fibre type, diameter and number. Journal of Animal Science 41: 66–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naeye, R. L. 1965. Probable cause of foetal growth retardation. Archives of Pathology 79: 284–291.Google Scholar
Powell, S. E. and Aberle, E. D. 1980. Effects of birth weight on growth and carcass composition of swine. Journal of Animal Science 50: 860–868.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royston, J. P., Flecknell, P. A. and Wootton, R. 1982. New evidence that the intrauterine growth retarded piglet is a member of a discrete subpopulation. Biology of the Neonate 42: 100–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Staun, H. 1963. Various factors affecting number and size of muscle fibres in the pig. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 13: 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stickland, N. C. 1973. The growth and development of skeletal muscle in pigs. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Hull.Google Scholar
Stickland, N. C. and Goldspink, G. 1973. A possible indicator muscle for the fibre content and growth characteristics of porcine muscle. Animal Production 16: 135–146.Google Scholar
Swatland, H. J. 1976. Effect of growth and plane of nutrition on apparent muscle fibre numbers in the pig. Growth 40: 285–292.Google ScholarPubMed
Swatland, H. J. and Cassens, R. G. 1972. Muscle growth: the problem of muscle fibers with an intrafascicular termination. Journal of Animal Science 35: 336–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Timson, B. F. 1982. The effect of varying postnatal growth rate on skeletal muscle fibre number in the mouse. Growth 46: 36–45.Google ScholarPubMed
Widdowson, E. M. 1970. Harmony of growth. Lancet 1: 901–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widdowson, E. M. 1971. Intra-uterine growth retardation in the pig. 1. Organ size and cellular development at birth and after to maturity. Biology of the Neonate 19: 329–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. 1974. Immediate and long-term consequences of being large or small at birth. In Size at Birth (ed. Elliot, K. and Knight, J.), pp. 65–82. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Wigmore, P. M. C. 1982. Prenatal muscle development in the pig. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wigmore, P. M. C. and Stickland, N. C. 1983. Muscle development in large and small pig fetuses. Journal of Anatomy 32: 235–245.Google Scholar