Advertisement

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

, Volume 153, Issue 2, pp 240–243 | Cite as

Modification of the Testicular Function in Laboratory Male Mice during Social Interactions: Effect of Female Presence

  • M. A. Kleshev
  • L. V. Osadchuk
Article
  • 42 Downloads

The count of spermatozoa in both caudal epididymides, percentage of abnormal spermatozoon heads and of mobile spermatozoa, body weight, weights of the testes and caudal epididymides were evaluated in adult inbred males (PT and CBA/Lac) kept with females for 5 days. Male mice of the same genotypes and age separated from females served as controls. In males kept with females, the weights of the testes increased in PT male mice, the percentage of rapidly mobile spermatozoa increased in CBA/Lac mice, and body weights decreased in males of both genotypes. The morphometric and spermatogenic parameters in laboratory mice were modulated by the presence of a female, but the effect was determined by the male genotype.

Key Words

testes spermatogenesis female effect inbred mice 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    E. V. Daev and A. V. Dukelskaya, Genetika, 39, No. 7, 1–6 (2003).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. P. Moshkin, L. A. Gerlinskaya, and R. Nagatomi, Nauka iz Pervykh Ruk, 2, No. 5, 43–53 (2005).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L. V. Osadchuk, I. N. Salomacheva, A. V. Bragin, and A. V. Osadchuk, Zh. Vyssh. Nervn. Deyat., 58, No. 1, 339–351 (2008).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. V. Osadchuk, I. N. Salomacheva, and A. V. Osadchuk, Ibid., 60, No. 3, 339–351 (2010).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    T. G. Amstislavskaya and N. K. Popova, Horm. Behav., 46, No. 5, 544–550 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    D. S. Guzick, J. W. Overstreet, P. Factor-Litvak, et al., N. Engl. J. Med., 345, No. 19, 1388–1393 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. W. Holdcraft and R. E. Braun, Int. J. Androl., 27, No. 6, 335–342 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. J. James, J. G. Nyby, and G. A. Saviolakis, Horm. Behav., 50, No. 3, 424–431 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    K. R. Kelliher, Ibid., 52, No. 5, 561–570 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Kishikawa, H. Tateno, and R. Yanagimachi, Biol. Reprod., 61, No. 3, 809–812 (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Koyama and S. Kamimura, Physiol. Behav., 71, Nos. 3–4, 415–422 (2000).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Koyama, Horm. Behav., 46, No. 3, 303–310 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    I. Rodriguez and U. Boehm, Results Probl. Cell Differ., 47, 77–96 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Endocrinologic Genetics, Institute of Cytology and Geneticsthe Russian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations