79 research outputs found

    Energy Metabolism Regulating Mammalian Oocyte Maturation

    Get PDF

    CHROMIC AND IRON OXIDES AS FECAL MARKERS TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL WHOOPING CRANES

    Get PDF
    The whooping crane (Grus americana) is listed as endangered under the IUCN Red List, the United States Endangered Species Act, and the Canadian Species at Risk Act (BirdLife International 2012, CWS and USFWS 2007). A major focus of recovery efforts for this endangered species is reintroduction to establish new populations (CWS and USFWS 2007). Captive populations are critical as a source of individuals for reintroduction efforts and also serve as insurance populations. Currently, there are a total of 157 whooping cranes held in captive breeding centers across North America, with the largest at the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in Laurel, Maryland. Birds produced in this facility are currently being released as part of efforts to establish the Eastern Migratory Population (EMP, Urbanek et al. 2005) and in an effort to establish a non-migratory population in Louisiana. In the past decade, PWRC has produced and released annually an average of 18 birds into the wild; however, reproductive performance of birds at this facility is lower than desired. PWRC had a 60% fertility rate for eggs laid from 2000 through 2010 (J. N. Chandler, personal communication, 2011). Furthermore, reproductive onset in this captive population appears to be delayed compared to wild populations. In wild populations, reproductive onset (production of sperm and eggs) normally occurs ~5 years of age in both males and females, ~2 years after initial pair formation occurs (Ellis et al., 1996), while some females in the EMP have laid eggs earlier than 5 years of age (Converse et al. 2011). However, PWRC females in some cases do not start to lay eggs until 7 years of age (Mirande et al. 1996). Currently, the PWRC population consists of a total of 74 whooping cranes, including 22 pairs. Six of these pairs (27%) are consistently infertile (i.e., no production of fertile eggs) and 3 other pairs (14%) have low fertility (30- 45% fertility in eggs laid), which is variable from year to year. Six pairs (27%) are recently formed and have not produced eggs, and so have unknown fertility. This leaves only 7 pairs (33%) which contribute maximally to PWRC’s chick production (J. N. Chandler, personal communication, 2011). Because of the challenges occurring within this captive colony, PWRC and Smithsonian National Zoo have initiated a joint research project to identify potential underlying causes of poor reproduction in captive whooping cranes

    Conserving, Distributing and Managing Genetically Modified Mouse Lines by Sperm Cryopreservation

    Get PDF
    Sperm from C57BL/6 mice are difficult to cryopreserve and recover. Yet, the majority of genetically modified (GM) lines are maintained on this genetic background.Reported here is the development of an easily implemented method that consistently yields fertilization rates of 70+/-5% with this strain. This six-fold increase is achieved by collecting sperm from the vas deferens and epididymis into a cryoprotective medium of 18% raffinose (w/v), 3% skim milk (w/v) and 477 microM monothioglycerol. The sperm suspension is loaded into 0.25 mL French straws and cooled at 37+/-1 degrees C/min before being plunged and then stored in LN(2). Subsequent to storage, the sperm are warmed at 2,232+/-162 degrees C/min and incubated in in vitro fertilization media for an hour prior to the addition of oocyte cumulus masses from superovulated females. Sperm from 735 GM mouse lines on 12 common genetic backgrounds including C57BL/6J, BALB/cJ, 129S1/SvImJ, FVB/NJ and NOD/ShiLtJ were cryopreserved and recovered. C57BL/6J and BALB/cByJ fertilization rates, using frozen sperm, were slightly reduced compared to rates involving fresh sperm; fertilization rates using fresh or frozen sperm were equivalent in all other lines. Developmental capacity of embryos produced using cryopreserved sperm was equivalent, or superior to, cryopreserved IVF-derived embryos.Combined, these results demonstrate the broad applicability of our approach as an economical and efficient option for archiving and distributing mice

    Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements.

    Get PDF
    Accurately quantifying species' area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area-based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on the previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home-range areas with global positioning system (GPS) locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4000 kg. We then applied blockcross validation to quantify bias in empirical home range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changedsubstantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum

    Effects of body size on estimation of mammalian area requirements

    Get PDF
    Accurately quantifying species’ area requirements is a prerequisite for effective area‐based conservation. This typically involves collecting tracking data on species of interest and then conducting home‐range analyses. Problematically, autocorrelation in tracking data can result in space needs being severely underestimated. Based on previous work, we hypothesized the magnitude of underestimation varies with body mass, a relationship that could have serious conservation implications. To evaluate this hypothesis for terrestrial mammals, we estimated home‐range areas with GPS locations from 757 individuals across 61 globally distributed mammalian species with body masses ranging from 0.4 to 4,000 kg. We then applied block cross‐validation to quantify bias in empirical home‐range estimates. Area requirements of mammals 1, meaning the scaling of the relationship changed substantially at the upper end of the mass spectrum
    corecore