4.3 Article

Hypoxic incubation blunts the development of thermogenesis in chicken embryos and hatchlings

Publisher

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00885.2006

Keywords

embryonic development; epigenetic adaptation; hatching; hypometabolism; hypoxia; thermoregulation; development

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We asked to what extent sustained hypoxia during embryonic growth might interfere with the normal development of thermogenesis. White Leghorn chicken eggs were incubated at 38 degrees C either in normoxia (Nx 21% O-2) or in hypoxia [Hx, 15% O-2, from embryonic day 5 (E5) untii hatching]. The Hx embryos had lower body weight (W) throughout incubation, and hatching was delayed by about 10 h. For both groups, all measurements were conducted in normoxia. At embryonic day E11, the static temperature-oxygen consumption (ambient T-VO2) curve was typically ectothermic (Q(10) = 1.92-1.94) and similar between Nx and Hx. Toward the end of incubation (E20), the Q(10) averaged 1.41 +/- 0.06 in Nx and 1.79 +/- 0.08 in Hx (P < 0.005), indicating that the onset of the thermogenic response in Hx lagged behind Nx. In the 1-day-old hatchlings (HI), body weight did not significantly differ between Nx and Hx. At III, the T-VO2 curves were endothermic-type, and more so in the older (> 8 h old) than in the newly hatched (< 8 h old) chicks, whether examined statically or dynamically as a function of time. In either case, the thermogenic responses of Hx were lower than those of Nx. In a 43-31 degrees C thermocline, the preferred T of the Hx hatchlings was around 37.3 degrees C, and similar to Nx, suggesting a similar setpoint for thermoregulation. We conclude that hypoxic incubation blunted the development of thermogenesis. This could be interpreted as an example of epigenetic regulation, in which an environmental perturbation during early development alters the phenotypic expression of a regulatory system.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available