4.4 Article

Circulating levels of plasma IGF-I during recovery from size-selective harvesting in Menidia menidia

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2013.06.001

关键词

IGF-1; Growth hormone; Menidia; Selection; Fisheries-induced evolution

资金

  1. United States Department of Agriculture, North Carolina Sea Grant [R/AF-46]
  2. AquaFish Collaborative Research Support Program of the United States Agency for International Development [EPP-A-00-06-00012-00]
  3. United States National Science Foundation [OCE-0425830]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Selection for growth-related traits in domesticated fishes often results in predictable changes within the growth hormone-insulin-like growth factor (GH-IGF-1) axis. Little is known about the mechanisms controlling changes in growth capacity resulting from fishery-induced evolution. We took advantage of a long-term study where Menidia menidia were selected for size at age over multiple generations to mimic fisheries-induced selection. This selection regime produced three populations with significant differences in intrinsic growth rate. These growth differences partially rebounded, but persisted even after selection was relaxed, resulting in fast, intermediate, and slow-growing lines. Plasma IGF-1 was measured in these populations as a potential target of selection on growth. IGF-1 was significantly correlated with current length and mass, and was positively correlated with growth rate (g d(-1)) in two lines, indicating it may be an appropriate indicator of growth capacity. The slow-growing line exhibited higher overall IGF-1 levels relative to the depressed IGF-1 seen in the fast-growing line, contrary to our prediction. We offer possible explanations for this unusual pattern and argue that somatic growth is likely to be under control of mechanism(s) downstream to IGF-1. IGF-1 provides an interesting basis for understanding endocrine control of growth in response to artificial selection and recovery. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据