Visitors   Views   Downloads
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Organ growth during development

Scatter plots showing log transformed organ masses against log body mass over development from hatch to 6-weeks old. The equations describing lines of best fit were: (A) heart: Mb0.91 – 1.96; (n = 69; r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001); (B) lung: Mb0.86 – 1.76 (n = 62; r2 = 0.97; p < 0.001); (C) liver: 0 – 2 weeks old (solid line): Mb1.10 – 1.70 (n = 30; r2 = 0.99; p < 0.001); 2 – 6 weeks old (dashed line): Mb0.76 – 0.77 (n = 59; r2 = 0.95; p < 0.001); (D) intestine: Mb0.75 – 0.34 (n= 69; r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.342v1/supp-1

Breast muscle growth during development

Scatter plots showing log transformed pectoralis major and minor masses against log body mass over development from 0 - 2-weeks (solid line) and 2 – 6-weeks old (dashed line). The equations describing lines of best fit were: (A) pectoralis major 0 – 2 weeks: Mb1.83 – 3.28 (n = 30, r2 = 0.99; p < 0.001); 2 – 6 weeks: Mb1.29 – 1.83 (n = 59; r2 = 0.98; p < 0.001).

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.342v1/supp-2

Ossification of the thoracic skeleton

Representative stained skeletons showing the progression of ossification in the vertebral ribs, uncinate processes and sternum. Blue areas correspond to cartilage and red areas to bone. Ossification of ribs and uncinate processes are shown for the hatchling (A and B), 2-week old (C and D) and 6-week old (E and F) birds panels. Ossification of the uncinate processes and sternum remain incomplete at slaughter age. Scale bars represent 10mm.

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.342v1/supp-3

Additional Information

Competing Interests

John Hutchinson is an Associate Editor for PeerJ. The authors declare no other competing interests.

Author Contributions

Peter G Tickle conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Heather Paxton conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Jeffery W Rankin conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

John R. Hutchinson conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Jonathan R Codd conceived and designed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Grant Disclosures

The following grant information was disclosed by the authors:

BBSRC grant: BB/I021116/1

Funding

This work was supported by BSRC grant BB/I021116/1 to JRC and JRH. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies