Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 84, Issue 1, pp 1028–1030 | Cite as

Dynamics of the α-fetoprotein content in mice of different genotypes in the neonatal period

  • S. S. Vasileiskii
  • R. V. Petrov
  • Kh. G. Tishner
Experimental Biology


The concentrations of α-fetoprotein (α-FP) in the neonatal period until the age of three weeks were determined in mice of different genotypes: CBA, C3H, C57BL/Sc/Sn, BALB/c, CC57W, and AKR, and in athymic nude mice (nu/nu). On the first day the α-FP concentration was 2−10–2−9; on the fifth day, 2−8; on the eighth day, 2−7; on the fifteenth day, 2−4; on the twenty-second day, it was zero. The exceptions were the athymic nude (nu/nu) mice, which had lower α-FP titers: 2−2 on the 15th day. It is concluded that control over α-FP synthesis is not connected with the athymia of the nude mice as such, but with other factors.

Key Words

α-fetoprotein thymus athymic mice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    S. S. Vasileiskii, Yu. M. Lopukhin, and R. V. Petrov, Ontogenez, No. 2, 205 (1972).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. S. Vasileiskii, G. E. Akinshina, and V. M. Kudashkina, Ontogenez, No. 2, 183 (1975).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. D. Perova and G. I. Abelev, Vopr. Med. Khim., No. 4, 369 (1967).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. V. Petrov, Vestn. Akad. Med. Nauk SSSR, No. 1, 41 (1974).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    N. I. Khramkova and G. I. Abelev, Byull. Eksp. Biol. Med., No. 12, 107 (1961).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    L. Ya. Shipova, A. I. Gusev, and N. V. Éngel'gardt, Ontogenez, No. 1, 53 (1974).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    V. I. Yablokova, Akush. Gin., No. 2, 11 (1964).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. F. Bach, M. Dardenne, and A. M. Bach, Transplant. Proc.,5, 135 (1973).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. P. Flanagan, Genet. Res.,8, 195 (1966).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. G. Feinberg, Int. Arch. Allergy,11, 129 (1957).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Gitlin and M. Boesman, J. Clin. Invest.,45, 1826 (1966).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. A. Good and A. E. Gabrielsen (editors), Thymus in Immunobiology, Harper, New York (1964).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. J. Hayward and R. Augustin, Int. Arch. Allergy,11, 192 (1957).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Mancini, J. P. Vaerman, A. O. Carbonara, et al., in: Protides of the Biological Fluids, Proceedings of the 11th Colloquium (ed. by H. Peeters), Am. Elsevier, New York (1964), pp. 370–371.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Masopust, K. Kithier, J. Radl, et al., Int. J. Cancer,3, 364 (1968).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. E. McFarlin, W. Strober, and T. A. Waldman, Medicine (Baltimore),51, 281 (1972).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. M. Pantelouris, Nature,217, 370 (1968).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. E. Perchalski, L. W. Clem, and P. A. Small, Am. J. Med. Sci.,256, 107 (1968).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    J. Rygaard, Acta Path. Microbiol. Scand.,77, 761 (1969).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. D. Stobo and T. B. Tomasi, Arth. Rheum.,9, 543 (1966).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    T. Waldman and K. R. McIntire, Lancet,2, 1112 (1972).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. S. Vasileiskii
  • R. V. Petrov
    • 1
  • Kh. G. Tishner
  1. 1.Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSRUSSR

Personalised recommendations