Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-tbj44 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T15:48:22.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in the shape of the mouse mandible: 1. Effect of age and sex on the results obtained from the discriminant functions used for genetic monitoring

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

D. P. Lovell ,
P. Totman  and
F. M. Johnson
D. P. Lovell
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Embryology and Teratology Unit, Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 4EF, England
P. Totman
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Embryology and Teratology Unit, Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton, Surrey SM5 4EF, England
F. M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Genetics, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The shape of the mandible of the mouse can be described by a series of discriminant functions which have been used to discriminate between and investigate relationships among strains of mice. The effect of sex and variation in age of the animal on the results obtained from these functions has been investigated. Significant sex differences in mandible shape were detected, but these were considerably smaller than the differences found between two inbred strains. A simple correction for expressing each measure as a proportion of the sum of the measures on each bone removes the effects of overall size. Significant age effects were found, but these were only large in animals under seven weeks of age where considerable changes are taking place in the relative lengths of bone measurements. Routine testing for genetic authenticity using the shape of the mandible is possible over a wide age range and may be an efficient method for monitoring genotypes at the end of long-term experiments.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , February 1984 , pp. 65 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, D. W. (1981). Y-chromosome effects on the shape of the mandible. The Jackson Laboratory Annual Report 1980–1981, p. 48.Google Scholar
Deol, M. S. & Truslove, G. M. (1957). Genetical studies on the skeleton of the mouse. XX. Maternal physiology and variation in the skeleton of C57BL mice. Journal of Genetics 55, 288–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W. J. & Brown, M. B. (eds) (1979). BMDP-79 Biomedical Computer Program P-series. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Festing, M. F. W. (1972). Mouse strain identification. Nature 238, 351–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festing, M. F. W. (1973). Mouse strain identification by mandible analysis. In The Laboratory Animal in Drug Testing (ed. Spiegel, A.), p. 105. Stuttgart: Fischer.Google Scholar
Festing, M. F. W. (1974). Genetic monitoring of laboratory mouse colonies in the Medical Research Council Accreditation Scheme for the suppliers of laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 8, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festing, M. F. W. (1976). Phenotypic variability of inbred and outbred mice. Nature 263, 230–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festing, M. F. W. (1979). Inbred Strains in Biomedical Research. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festing, M. F. W. & Lovell, D. P. (1980). Routine genetic monitoring of commercial and other mouse colonies in the UK using mandible shape; five years of experience. In 7th ICLAS Symposium Utrecht, 1979 (ed. Spiegel, A., Erichsen, S. and Solleveld, H. A.), pp. 341–348.Google Scholar
Festing, M. F. W. & Lovell, D. P. (1981). Domestication and development of the mouse as a laboratory animal. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 47, 43–62.Google Scholar
Grüneberg, H. (1963). The Pathology of Development. A Study of Inherited Skeletal Disorders in Animals. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Howe, W. L. & Parsons, P. A. (1967). Genotype and environment in the determination of minor skeletal variants and body weight in mice. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 17, 283–292.Google Scholar
Kahan, B., Auerbach, R., Alter, B. J. & Bach, F. H. (1982). Histocompatibility and isoenzyme differences in commercially supplied ‘BALB/c’ mice. Science 217, 379–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovell, D. P. & Festing, M. F. W. (1982). Relationships among colonies of the laboratory rat. Journal of Heredity 73, 81–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mossiman, J. E. & Jones, F. C. (1979). New statistical methods for allometry with application to Florida red-winged blackbirds. Evolution 33, 444–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, A. G. (1954). Genetical studies on the skeleton of the mouse. XI. The influence of diet on variation within pure lines. Journal of Genetics 52, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1968). Statistical Methods, 6th ed.Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, G. H. (1969). The grading of commercially-bred laboratory animals. Veterinary Record 85, 225–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed