QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kristan, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kristan, D. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effects of intestinal nematodes during lactation: consequences for host morphology, physiology and offspring mass

Deborah M. Kristan

Department of Biology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83844, USA

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Body mass and composition (fat versus lean mass) of parasitized and unparasitized mice that were either lactating or virgin. Error bars are 1 S.E.M. of whole body mass; sample sizes (N) are in parentheses above each bar; and similar letters indicate no significant difference at P=0.05.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Small intestine dry mass (+1 S.E.M.; on left y-axis shown by bars; partitioned into mucosal and serosal dry mass) and small intestine length (±1 S.E.M.; on right y-axis shown by diamonds) for parasitized and unparasitized mice that were either lactating or virgin. Sample sizes are as in Fig. 1.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Total, serosal and mucosal dry masses of three small intestine regions for parasitized and unparasitized mice that were either lactating or virgin. Error bars are +1 S.E.M. of total region dry mass, and sample sizes are as in Fig. 1.

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Food intake for parasitized and unparasitized lactating mice for litter sizes ranging from 6 pups to 12 pups; each data point represents one individual.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Relationship between whole body mass and lean body mass with resting metabolic rate.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Rate of glucose uptake for three small intestine regions and the mean rate for the entire small intestine for parasitized and unparasitized mice that were either lactating or virgin. Error bars are ±1 S.E.M., and sample sizes are as in Fig. 1.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Total glucose-uptake capacity adjusted for whole body mass for each small intestine region (left y-axis) and the entire small intestine (right y-axis) for parasitized and unparasitized mice that were either lactating or virgin. Error bars are +1 S.E.M., and sample sizes are as in Fig. 1.

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Average pup mass at weaning (±1 S.E.M.) for litter sizes ranging from 3 pups to 14 pups for female (A) and male (B) pups of parasitized or unparasitized mothers. Number of pups (N) is shown in square brackets for parasitized mothers or in parentheses for unparasitized mothers.

View larger version (19K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Average pup mass at weaning (±1 S.E.M.), adjusted for litter size, as a function of parity ranging from litter number 1 to litter number 9 for parasitized or unparasitized mothers. Numbers of litters are shown in brackets for parasitized mothers or in parentheses for unparasitized mothers.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

Twitter