4.4 Article

Fate of the initial follicle pool: Empirical and mathematical evidence supporting its sufficiency for adult fertility

Journal

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 298, Issue 1, Pages 149-154

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.06.023

Keywords

primordial follicles; germ cells; germline stem cells; follicle counts; oocyte; SSEA-1

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [U54 HD41857, U54 HD041857, HD007068, P01 HD021921] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The importance of the initial follicle pool in fertility in female adult mammals has recently been debated. Utilizing a mathematical model of the dynamics of follicle progression (primordial to primary to secondary), we examined whether the initial follicle pool is sufficient for adult fertility through reproductive senescence in CD 1 mice. Follicles in each stage were counted from postnatal day 6 through 12 months and data were fit to a series of first-order differential equations representing two mechanisms: an initial pool of primordial follicles as the only follicle source (fixed pool model), or an initial primordial follicle pool supplemented by germline stem cells (stem cell model). The fixed pool model fit the experimental data, accurately representing the maximum observed primary follicle number reached by 4-6 months of age. Although no germline stem cells could be identified by SSEA-1 immunostaining, the stem cell model was tested using a range of de novo primordial follicle production rates. The stem cell model failed to describe the observed decreases in follicles over time and did not parallel the accumulation and subsequent reduction in primary follicles during the early fertile lifespan of the mouse. Our results agree with established dogma that the initial endowment of ovarian follicles is not supplemented by an appreciable number of stem cells; rather, it is sufficient to ensure the fertility needs of the adult mouse. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available