Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T23:42:00.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A multivariate analysis of subline divergence in the shape of the mandible in C57BL/Gr mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Michael Festing
Michael Festing
Affiliation:
Medical Research Council Laboratory Animals Centre, Woodmansterne Road, Carshalton, Surrey, U.K.

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 in. nine sublines of C57BL/Gr, seven other strains of ‘C57 ancestry’ and four unrelated strains was studied by multivariate techniques. The generalized distance function was used to classify individuals in the groups which they most closely resembled. The degree of misclassification depended on the pedigree relationship between strains and sublines. The generalized distance between pairs of subline centeroids was also highly correlated (r = 0·60) with the number of generations between them. A canonical variate analysis was used to reduce the dimensionality so that a graphical display of the relationships between strains and sublines could be made. The results agreed closely with the classification analysis. It was concluded that the shape of the mandible could be used for subline identification though the accuracy of this technique depends on how closely the sublines are related.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 121 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

References

REFERENCES

Bailey, D. W. (1959). Rates of subline divergence in highly inbred strains of mice. Journal of Heredity 50, 26–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackith, R. E. & Reyment, R. A. (1971). Multivariate Morphometrics. Academic Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
Cooley, W. W. & Lohnes, P. R. (1971). Multivariate data analysis. John Wiley and Sons Inc. New York and London.Google Scholar
Delany, M. J. & Whittaker, H. M. (1969). Variation in the skull of the long-tailed field-mouse. Apodemus sylvaticus in mainland Britain. Journal of Zoology 157, 147–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deol, M. S., Grüneberg, H., Seaele, A. G. & Truslove, G. M. (1957). Genetical differentiation involving morphological characters in an inbred strain of mice. I. A British branch of the C57BL strain. Journal of Morphology 100, 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festing, M. (1972). Mouse strain identification. Nature 238, 351–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geewal, M. S. (1962). The rate of genetic divergence of sublines in the C57BL strain of mice. Genetical Research 3, 226–237.Google Scholar
Grüneberg, H. (1970). Is there a viral component in the genetic background? Nature 225, 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrott, R. F. & Festing, M. (1971). Standardised Laboratory Animals, Manual No. 2, MRC Laboratory Animals Centre, Carshalton, Surrey.Google Scholar
Staats, J. (1966). The Laboratory Mouse. In Green, E. L. (ed) The Biology of the Laboratory Mouse. McGraw-Hill, New York and London.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. A. (1972). Genetic relationships between inbred strains of mice. Journal of Heredity 63, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yong, Hoi-Sen (1972). Is subline differentiation a continuing process in inbred strains of mice? Genetical Research 19, 53–59.Google Scholar