Effects of Hormonal Supplementation on Nuclear Maturation and Cortical Granules Distribution of Canine Oocytes During Various Reproductive Stages

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of hCG, progesterone and oestradiol supplementation on nuclear and cytoplasmic maturation of canine oocytes cultured for 24, 48, 72 and 96 h. Oocytes obtained from 18 healthy bitches were divided into three groups according to their reproductive status (follicular, luteal and anoestrus stages) and cultured in TCM 199 + 25 UI/ml of hCG + 1 μg/ml of progesterone + 1 μg/ml of 17‐β oestradiol or without hormonal supplementation (control) for different periods. Then, they were stained with FITC‐LCA‐Hoescht for chromatin configuration and cortical granules distribution and evaluated under an epifluorescence microscope. Culture time and the influence of different stages of the oestrous cycle were also evaluated. The present study demonstrated that there was no significant difference among the reproductive stages. With regards to culture medium, only oocytes from the supplemented medium were able to complete meiosis; however, significant difference was only noticed in the percentage of MI stage oocytes (p < 0.05) in the follicular and luteal group at 72 h of culture. Most oocytes in germinal vesicle, germinal vesicle breakdown and metaphase I stage had cortical granules distributed throughout the cytoplasm (immature pattern), irrespective of the culture period (p < 0.05). Cortical granules distributed immediately beneath the plasma membrane (mature) was only observed in metaphase II stage oocytes, but not all of them presented matured cytoplasm. Our results reveal that cortical granules distribution in canine oocytes matured in vitro did not progressed in correspondence with nuclear stage changes and are in accordance with those from other species.     

Animal Biowarfare Research: Historical Perspective and Potential Future Attacks

A biological attack on livestock or poultry could result in the loss of valuable animals, costs related to the containment of outbreaks and the disposal of carcasses, lost trade and other economic effects involving suppliers, transporters, distributors and restaurants; however, it is not possible to secure all livestock, and livestock are much less well guarded than human targets. Thus, the vulnerability of the livestock industry to the introduction of biological agents varies for the following reasons: (i) the majority of lethal and contagious biological agents are environmentally resilient, endemic in foreign countries and harmless to humans, making it easier for terrorists to acquire, handle and deploy these pathogens, (ii) with animals concentrated in fewer production facilities and frequently transported between these facilities, a single pathogen introduction could cause widespread infection and (iii) the extent of human travel around the globe makes it difficult to exclude exotic animal diseases as possible biological agents. Historically, many governments have developed and planned to use biological agents for direct attacks on livestock or poultry. In the past, developed nations have actively developed biological weapons to target animals. The potential spectrum of bioterrorism ranges from isolated acts against individuals by individuals to tactical and strategic military attacks and state‐sponsored international terrorism intended to cause mass casualties in animals, humans or both. This review provides an overview of the past development and use of biological weapons and describes potential future attacks.     

The coefficient of dominance is not (always) estimable with biallelic markers

The genetic relationship among individuals at one locus is characterized by nine coefficients of identity. The coefficients of inbreeding, coancestry and dominance (or fraternity) are just linear functions of them. Here, it is shown how they can be estimated using biallelic and triallelic markers using the method of moments, and comparisons are made with other methods based on molecular coancestry or molecular covariance. It is concluded that in the general case of dominance and inbreeding with biallelic markers, only the coefficients of inbreeding and coancestry can be estimated, but neither the single coefficients of identity nor the coefficient of dominance can be estimated. More than two alleles are required for a full estimation as illustrated with the triallelic situation.