• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1979 Development of the Cervical Region of Chicken Embryos Studied via the Teratogenic Effects of Monocrotophos. Christina Irene Lusk Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Lusk, Christina Irene, "Development of the Cervical Region of Chicken Embryos Studied via the Teratogenic Effects of Monocrotophos." (1979). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 3341. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/3341 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the Him is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 7921971 LUSK, CHRISTINA IRENE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CERVICAL REGION OF CHICKEN EMBRYOS STUDIED VIA THE TERATOGENIC EFFECTS OF M0N0CR0T0PH08. THE LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COL*# PH.D.# 1979 University Microfilms International 3o o n . z e e b r o a o . a n n a r b o r , mi 48io6 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed 1n the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been Identified here with a check mark . 1. Glossy photographs {/ 2. Colored Illustrations _________ 3. Photographs with dark background / '4. Illustrations are poor copy _________ 5. Print shows through as there 1s text on both sides of page __________ 6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ___________throughout 7. Tightly bound copy with print lost 1n spine _________ 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print _________ 9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author _________ 10. Page(s) ________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows ________ 11. Poor carbon copy _________ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type _________ 13. Appendix pages are poor copy _________ 14. Original copy with light type _________ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages _________ 16. Other_______________________________________________________________________ International 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR. Ml -18106 (313) 761-4700 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CERVICAL REGION OF CHICKEN EMBRYOS STUDIED VIA THE TERATOGENIC EFFECTS OF MONOCROTOPHOS A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Zoology and Physiology by Christina Irene Lusk B.S. Mississippi State University, 1970 M.S. Mississippi State University, 1972 May 1979 Acknowledgement I wish to express my gratitude to my major professor, Dr. Mary L. Grodner, who supported and helped me in any way possible in this project. I especially wish to thank her for help with the SEM work. I wish to thank W. L. Steffens for technical assistance with photography and TEM, and for training in the use of the Hitachi HU-11 A. Thanks go to my friends Barbara Bel isle and Chris Smith, who helped print plates, and to Linda Floyd, who assisted in typing the final draft of this paper. I wish to thank Dr. Bill Johnson and the LSU Poultry Science Department for providing the fertile White Leghorn eggs necessary for this project. I also want to thank my committee, Dr. Ned Lambremont, Dr. Jerry Graves, Dr. Bill Byrd, Dr. Henry Werner, and Dr. J. P. Woodring for their support and advice. Table of Contents Title Page i Acknowl edgement i i Table of Contents ......................................................................................... iii List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract xiii Introduction 1 Literature Review ......................................................................................... 3 Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 14 Results 19 Discussion 37 Conclusion 47 Literature Cited 50 Plates 55 Vita 136 iii List of Tables Table 1 Comparison of body parameters for 2 and 3 day treatme.nts ........................................................................ 20 Table 2 Stage of. development and per cent abnormal embryos at various hours after treatment ..................... 23 Table 3 Histochemical test for acetylcholinesterase of tissue from the cervical region of stage 19+ chicken embryos treated in vitro. with in h ib ito rs ..................................................................................... 33 Table 4 Histochemical test for acetylcholinesterase after in ovo treatments of stage 19 - 20 chicken embryos ........................................................................ 34 iv List of Figures Fig. 1 Control, treatment before incubation ............................... 56 Fig. 2-3 Embryo treated with monocrotophos before incubation .................................................................... 56 Fig. 4 Control embryo, treatment at 1 day of incubation ............................................................................ 58 Fig. 5 Embryo treated with monocrotophos at 1 day of incubation ................................................................ 58 Fig. 6 Control embryo, treatment at 2 days of incubation ..................................................................................... 60 Fig. 7 Embryo treated with monocrotophos at 2 days of incubation ................................................................ 60 Fig. 8 Control embryo, treatment at 3 days of incubation ..................................................................................... 62 Fig. 9 Embryo treated with monocrotophos at 3 days of incubation .................................................................... 62 Fig. 10 Control embryo, treatment at 4 days of incubation ..................................................................................... 64 Fig. 11-12 Embryo treated with monocrotophos at 4 days of incubation .................................................................... 66 Fig. 13 Control embryo, treatment at 5 days of incubation ..................................................................................... 68 Fig. 14 Embryo treated with monocrotophos at 5 days of incubation .................................................................... 68 Fig. 15 Control embryo, 3 hours after treatment at 3 days of incubation, SEM ............................................... 70 Fig. 16-18 Embryo 3 hours after treatment with monocrotophos at 3 days of incubation, SEM ................. 70 v vi Fig. 19 Control embryo, 3 hours after treatment at 3 days of incubation ................................................................ 72 Fig. 20 Embryo 3 hours after treatment with mono­ crotophos at 3 days of incubation ...................................... 72 Fig. 21 Embryo 3 hours after treatment with mono­ crotophos at 3 days of incubation ...................................... 74 Fig. 22 Control embryo, 3 hours after treatment at 3 days of incubation, 1 urn c.x ......................................... 74 Fiq. 23 Embryo'3 hours after treatment with mono­ crotophos at 3 days of incubation, 1 urn c.x. 74 Fig. 24 Marginal layer of ventral edge of neural tube, control embryo, 3 hours after treat­ ment at 3 days of incubation, TEM ...................................... 76 Fig. 25 Marginal layer

Load more

  155

Copy Link