Skip to main content
Log in

Is compensatory growth a complicating factor in mouse teratology?

  • Letter
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Abstract

METHODS developed in an attempt to optimise the chances of identifying a teratogen generally involve the administration of the compound to a pregnant female in a number of ways, followed by autopsy about 24 h before parturition. This system maximises the period during which abnormalities may develop and circumvents loss by cannibalisation of dead or deformed newborn animals by their mother. The methodology is simple and efficient but provides no information about the immediate response of the embryo to the drug and any capability it may have for regulation or recovery from damage. Thus developmental disturbances could pass unnoticed. However, the damage, for example behavioural or reproductive abnormality, may manifest itself postnatally, and this has recently aroused some concern1,2. We report here on the mode of action of a known teratogen, mitomycin C (MMC) on mouse embryos. In rodents this antibiotic is teratogenic at high doses. In rats the LD50 and teratogenic dose seem to coincide, but for mice these figures may differ considerably3–5. Abnormalities reported include exencephaly, spina bifida6, skeletal and other non-nervous system defects7. The frequency of abnormality and dose response is strain dependent in mice. We know of no reports on the immediate response of mouse embryos to MMC and of only one on the postnatal development of mice exposed to the drug in utero in mid-gestation8. Our results indicate that, during early organogenesis stages, the mouse embryo has a remarkable capacity for recovery from severe damage and developmental retardation induced during primitive-streak stages, when drugs were thought more likely to be lethal than teratogenic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilson, J. G. Teratology 16, 227–228 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rodier, P. M. Teratology 16, 235–246 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chaube, S. & Murphy, M. L. Adv. Teratol. 3, 181–237 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nishimiura, H. & Shiota, K. in Handbook of Teratology Vol. 3 (eds Wilson, J. G. & Clarke Fraser, F.) 119–154 (Plenum, New York 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson, J. G. Environment and Birth Defects, 148–154 (Academic, New York, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Takaya, M. Proc. congenital Anomalies Res. Ass. Jap. 3, 47–48 (1963).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nishimiura, H. 3rd Ann. Mtng Teratol. Soc. Quebec, Abstr. (1963).

  8. Tanaka, T. Kaibogoshu Zasshi 16, 306–312 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ito, T. Congenital Anomalies 7, 239–249 (1967).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fujii, Y. Congenital Anomalies 8, 219–229 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tanimura, T. Okajimas Folia Anat. Jap. 44, 337–355 (1968).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy, M. L. in Teratology, Principles and Techniques (eds Wilson, J. G. & Warkany, J.) 145–184 (Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Snow, M. H. L. Ciba Fndn Symp. 40, 53–70 (1976); J. embryol. exp. Morph. 42, 293–303 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

SNOW, M., TAM, P. Is compensatory growth a complicating factor in mouse teratology?. Nature 279, 555–557 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/279555a0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/279555a0

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation