Mothers eating habits affect her daughters milk production Professor - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Professor Hugh Blair et al IVABS, International Sheep Research Centre and NRCGD, Massey University

Mother’s eating habits affect her daughters’ milk production

A bit of history

• Lamarck (c.1800)

 inheritance of acquired characters (antelopes → giraffes)

• Hammond (1930s-50s)

 maternal constraint (crossing Shire horses & Shetland ponies)

• Lysenko (1940s-50s)

 inheritance of vernalisation (increased grain yields)

• Waddington (1940s-50s)

 epigenetic landscape & canalisation (plasticity)

• Lush (1940s)

 repeatability; permanent environmental effects

• Barker (1980s-90s)

Barker hypothesis, thrifty phenotype, Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD), fetal programming

• Morgan, Sutherland, Martin & Whitelaw (1999)

epigenetic inheritance in mice

• Gluckman & Hanson (2000s)

predictive adaptive response mismatch

A bit of history

FIGURE 1. Coronary heart disease death rates, expressed as standardized mortality ratios, in 10141 men and 5585 women born in Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, from 1911 to 1930, according to birth weight. Derived from Osmond et al (12). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 5, 1344S-1352s, May 2000

Birth weight and CHD

(Keith Godfrey and David Barker)

• Barker (1980s-90s)

Barker hypothesis, thrifty phenotype, Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD), fetal programming

• Morgan, Sutherland, Martin & Whitelaw (1999)

epigenetic inheritance in mice

• Gluckman & Hanson (2000s)

predictive adaptive response mismatch

A bit of history

Folic acid and obesity / colour

• Barker (1980s-90s)

Barker hypothesis, thrifty phenotype, Developmental Origins of Health and Disease (DOHaD), fetal programming

• Morgan, Sutherland, Martin & Whitelaw (1999)

epigenetic inheritance in mice

• Gluckman & Hanson (2000s)

predictive adaptive response mismatch

A bit of history

Fetal programming

• “Programming” of

metabolism / physiology to match predicted environment behavioural responses to improve survival etc

• Probably via epigenetic mechanisms

Why?

enhanced survival (short-term – plasticity) improved chance of gene(s) being passed to the next generation evolution (long-term)?

Several animal/insect models

• Southampton – protein restriction in mice
• Auckland – calorific restriction in rats
• McGill – grooming rats
• Otago – honey bees
• Massey – sheep

Massey sheep research

• Fetal programming and its importance for

farm animals

• How do stressors during pregnancy affect

later life performance?

• Is this transmitted between generations?

What sort of stressors?

• Restricted feeding during pregnancy
• Genetic maternal constraint
• Young growing pregnant mothers
• Multiple fetuses

What drives us?

• Identification of economically relevant effects of

fetal programming in farm animals

• Development of a cost-effective measurement

tool

• Development of interventions

either manipulation of animal biology or culling of animals predicted to perform poorly in their lifetime

2005 pregnancy feeding trial

Feed restriction d21-140

Ad libitum (84kg) Maintenance (70kg)

D21 – D140 of pregnancy AI Suffolk semen Synchronized

Feed restriction

After birth After weaning At 2 years of age Synchronized & Mated

All offspring treated the same post-d140 of pregnancy

G1 Ewes born to ad libitum fed dams G1 Ewes born to maintenance fed dams

P<0.05 * P<0.10 **

7 14 21 28 35 42 49 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Days in lactation Milk yield (kg)

** *

7 14 21 28 35 42 49 5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Days in lactation Lactose %

**

2009 pregnancy feeding trial

Study designed to:

• Identify critical

programming periods

• Identify optimal

maternal feeding conditions

• Identify potential

mechanisms

Dam (G0) weights

Treatment Preg50 kg (±0.5) Preg137 kg (±0.6) Lact91 kg (±0.7) L20-50 62.2a 84.3 70.2 M20-50 65.1b 85.5 70.6 H20-50 69.5c 86.4 72.2 M51-140 82.6a 71.7 H51-140 88.2b 70.3

55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 550 600 650 700 750 800 850

Live weight (kg) Age (days)

HH HM LH LM MH MM

mating PD parturition weaning docking

Effect of dam (G0) nutrition during pregnancy (P20 – 140)

• n adult ewe offspring (G1) live weight from mating

Effect of dam nutrition during pregnancy (P20 – 140)

• n offspring milk yields

1200 1700 2200 2700 3200 3700 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Milk yield (g) Days in lactation

HH HM LH LM MH MM

Maternal vs direct effects for birth weight

Lamb birth weights (kg)

G1 Stressed 4.6 4.2 3.7 G1 Normal 5.1 5.0 4.6

Two stress paradigms: pregnancy feeding and dam age Std Error ~0.1kg

Lamb birth weights (kg)

G1 Stressed 4.6 4.2 3.7 G1 Normal 5.1 5.0 4.6 G2 Stressed 5.0 4.8 5.2 5.2 4.9 6.4 5.4 G2 Normal 4.7 4.5 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.8 5.1

Two stress paradigms: pregnancy feeding and dam age Std Error ~0.1kg

3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 7.00 3.50 3.70 3.90 4.10 4.30 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30

G2 Birthweight G1 Birthweight

G1 vs G2 Birthweight

regression ~ -0.5kg/kg

Maternal & direct effects

• Maternal effect – uterine capacity to grow

the fetus (placenta?)

• Direct effect – growth genes of fetus
• Negative genetic correlation between

maternal and direct effects on birth weight

-0.56 -0.44 -0.35 -0.13 -0.10 0.01 0.11

Genetic maternal constraint

200kg 800kg 20kg 20kg 50kg 70kg

(Walton & Hammond, 1938)

Cheviot x Suffolk Cheviot x Cheviot Suffolk x Suffolk Suffolk x Cheviot

Crossbreeding Embryo transfer Group (lamb in dam) Birth weight (kg) ± 0.2 Group (lamb in dam) Birth weight (kg) ± 0.2 (S x S) in S large control 5.2 a (S x S) in S large control 5.9 a (S x C) in C Restricted 4.4 b (S x S) in C Restricted 5.0 b (C x S) in S Luxurious 5.1 a (C x C) in S Luxurious 5.5 ab (C x C) in C small control 4.1 b (C x C) in C small control 5.1 b

Lamb birth weights

Crossbreeding Embryo transfer Group (lamb in dam) Birth weight (kg) ± 0.2 Group (lamb in dam) Birth weight (kg) ± 0.2 (S x S) in S large control 5.2 a (S x S) in S large control 5.9 a (S x C) in C Restricted 4.4 b (S x S) in C Restricted 5.0 b (C x S) in S Luxurious 5.1 a (C x C) in S Luxurious 5.5 ab (C x C) in C small control 4.1 b (C x C) in C small control 5.1 b

Lamb birth weights

Fetal morphometry at day19

Group (Fetus in Dam) Embryo length (mm) ± 0.6 (SxS) in S Large control 13.4 c (SxS) in C Restricted 11.0 a (CxC) in S Luxurious 15.2 d (CxC) in C Small control 12.8 bc

Fetal morphometry at day19

Where to now?

• Refine animal models (type & time of

“insult”) of fetal programming

• Quantify on-farm economic effects
• Discover the (epigenetic) mechanisms

responsible for programming

• Devise interventions

Thank You