Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:07:24.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Correlation between genetic distances based on single loci and on skeletal morphology in inbred mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Michael F. W. Festing  and
Thomas H. Roderick
Michael F. W. Festing*
Affiliation:
MRC Experimental Embryology and Teratology Unit, Carshalton, Surrey, England
Thomas H. Roderick
Affiliation:
The Jackson Laboratory Bar Harbor, Maine, USA
*
* 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.

Genetic and morphometric distances between 12 inbred strains of mice ranging from closely related substrains to a sub-species were estimated using published data on single locus polymorphisms, and on the basis of up to 44 measurements on seven different bones, respectively. Simulation was also used to investigate sampling effects for the single loci. There were strong and statistically highly significant correlations among all measures of genetic distance ranging from 0·58 for the comparison of single loci with the logarithm of the Mahalanobis distance based on 24 measurements on four bones, to 0·72 for estimates of genetic distance based on single loci and the morphology of the mandible. These findings are in sharp contrast with those of Wayne & O'Brien (1986) who claimed that ‘structural gene and morphometric variation of mandible traits are uncoupled between mouse strains’. Their failure to find such a correlation is probably because their sample of inbred strains included only a single pair of closely related substrains, and no substrains separated for less than 40 years, and because they failed to correct for non-linearity between morphometric and single-locus measurement scales. Simulations and regression analysis suggested that genetic distances could be estimated with approximately equal precision using morphological data on bone measurements or about 10 cladistically informative single loci, which would usually involve sampling about 50 loci. Data based on single-gene markers is usually more informative than morphometric data for studying the similarity of independently-derived strains. However, similarities among closely related populations such as sublines of an inbred strain can usually be studied more efficiently using morphometry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , February 1989 , pp. 45 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

References

Dietz, E. J. (1983). Permutation tests for association between two distance matrices. Systematic Zoology 32, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, G. & Everitt, B. S. (1982). An Introduction to Mathematical Taxonomy. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Festing, M. F. W. (1972). Mouse strain identification. Nature 238, 351–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Festing, M. F. W. (1973). A multivariate analysis of subline divergence in the shape of the mandible in C57BL/Gr mice. Genetical Research 21, 121–132.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. Basingstoke, London. Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Field, K. F., Olsen, G. J., Lane, D. J., Giovannoni, S. J., Ghiselin, M. T., Raff, E. C., Pace, N. R. & Raff, E. C. (1988). Molecular phylogeny of the animal kingdom. Science 239, 748–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovell, D. P. & Johnson, F. M. (1983). Quantitative genetic variation in the skeleton of the mouse. I. variation between inbred strains. Genetical Research 42, 169–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, W. M. & Atchley, W. R. (1985 a). Evolution in inbred strains of mice appears to be rapid. Science 228, 1169–1175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fitch, W. M. & Atchley, W. R. (1985 b). Reply. Science 230, 1408–1409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, D. P., Totman, P. & Johnson, F. M. (1984). Variation in the shape of the mandible. 1. Effect of age and sex on the results obtained from the discriminant functions used for generic monitoring. Genetical Research 43, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nei, M. (1978). Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89, 83–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. C. & O'Brien, S. J. (1980). Genetic variance of laboratory outbred Swiss mice. Nature 283, 157–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roderick, T. H., Staats, J. & Womack, J. E. (1981). Strain distribution of polymorphic variants. pp. 377–396. In (ed. Green, M. C.) Genetic variants and strains of the laboratory mouse. Stuttgart and New York: Fischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R. (1979). Testing statistical significance of geographic variation patterns. Systematic Zoology 28, 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staats, J. (1985). Standardized nomenclature for inbred strains of mice: eighth listing. Cancer Research 45, 945–977.Google ScholarPubMed
Wayne, R. K. & O'Brien, S. J. (1986). Empirical demonstration that structural gene and morphometric variation of mandible traits are uncoupled between mouse strains. Journal of Mammalogy 67, 441–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar