Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:30:50.131Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of replicated selection for body weight in mice on vertebral shape

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

D. R. Johnson ,
P. O'Higgins  and
T. J. McAndrew
D. R. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Morphometrics Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Medical and Dental Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, West Yorkshire, U.K.
P. O'Higgins
Affiliation:
Morphometrics Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Medical and Dental Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, West Yorkshire, U.K.
T. J. McAndrew
Affiliation:
Morphometrics Laboratory, Department of Anatomy, Medical and Dental Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, West Yorkshire, U.K.
*
* Corresponding author.
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 shapes of T1 and T2 vertebrae from unselected Q strain mice and from strains selected for large and small body size were studied by Fourier analysis in order to ascertain whether shape change was produced by size selection. The vertebrae of large, small and control strains were easily distinguishable, but between replicate groups shape differences were less marked. The main component of shape change was size related, but mice unselected for size also showed a non-size-related shape change.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 129 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

References

Ashton, E. H. (1981). The Australopithecinae: their biometrical study. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 46, 67–126.Google Scholar
Bryne, I., Hooper, J. C. & McCarthy, J. C. (1973). Effects of selection for body size on the weight and cellular structure of seven mouse muscles. Animal Production 17, 187–196.Google Scholar
Clarke, J. N. (1969). Studies on the genetic control of growth in mice. Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1973). Replicated selection for body weight in mice. Genetical Research 22, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S., Gauld, I. K. & Roberts, R. C. (1978). Cell numbers and cell sizes in organs of mice selected for large and small body size. Genetical Research 31, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gower, J. C. (1966 a). Some distance properties of latent roots and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53, 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gower, J. C. (1966 b). A Q-technique for the calculation of Canonical variates. Biometrika 53, 588–590.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. & McCarthy, J. C. (1976). A note of fibre number and diameter in muscles of large and small lines of mice compared at a fixed body weight. Animal Production 22, 131–133.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. R., O'Higgins, P., McAndrew, T. J., Adams, L. M. & Flinn, R. M. (1985). Measurement of biological shape: a general method applied to mouse vertebrae. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 90, 363–377.Google ScholarPubMed
Jolicoeur, P. (1963). The multivariate generalisation of the allometry equation. Biometrics 19, 497–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lestrel, P. E. (1974). Some problems in the assessment of morphological size and shape differences. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 18, 140–162.Google Scholar
Lestrel, P. E. (1982). A Fourier analytic procedure to describe complex morphological shapes. In Factors and Mechanisms Influencing Bone Growth (ed. Dixon, A. D. and Sarnat, B. G.). New York: Alan R. Liss.Google Scholar
O'Higgins, P. & Williams, N. W. (1987). An investigation into the use of Fourier coefficients in characterising cranial shape in primates. Journal of Zoology 211, 409–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Higgins, P., Johnson, D. R. & McAndrew, T. M. (1986). The clonal model of vertebral column development: a reinvestigation of vertebral shape using Fourier analysis. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 96, 171–182.Google ScholarPubMed
O'Higgins, P., Johnson, D. R. & McAndrew, T. M. (1987). Mathematical and biological intermediacy in bone shape. Fourier analysis of cervical and upper thoracic vertebrae in the mouse. Journal of Zoology (In the Press.)Google Scholar
SAS User's Guide Statistics (1982). Pp. 381–396. Cary N.C.: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. W. (1961). On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Truslove, G. M. (1976). The effect of selection for body weight on the skeletal variation of the mouse. Genetical Research 28, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimise an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58, 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar