Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:12:05.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inbred mouse strains and genetic stability: a review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2010

J. Casellas
J. Casellas*
Affiliation:
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
*
†E-mail: joaquim.casellas@uab.cat
Get access

Abstract

Inbred mice were essential animal models for scientific research during the 20th century and will contribute decisive results in the current and next centuries. Far from becoming an obsolete research tool, the generation of new inbred strains is continuing and such strains are being used in many research fields. However, their genetic properties have been overlooked for decades, although recent research has revealed new insights into their genetic fragility and relative instability. Contrary to what we usually assume, inbred mice are far from being completely isogenic and both single-gene major mutations and polygenic mutational variability are continuously uploading into inbred populations as new sources of genetic polymorphisms. Note that several inbred strains from new major mutations are released every year, whereas small mutations can accumulate up to accounting for a significant percentage of the phenotypic variance (e.g. 4.5% in a recent study on C57BL/6J mice). Moreover, this genetic heterogeneity can be maintained for several generations by heterozygote selection and, if fixed instead of dropping off, genetic drift must be anticipated. The contribution of accidental genetic contamination in inbred strains must also be considered, although its incidence in current breeding stocks should be minimal, or even negligible. This review revisits several relevant topics for current inbred strains, discussing the latest cutting-edge results within the context of the genetic homogeneity and stability of laboratory mice. Inbred mice can no longer be considered as completely isogenic, but provide a remarkably homogeneous animal model with an inevitable moderate-to-low degree of genetic variability. Despite a certain degree of genetic heterogeneity becoming inescapable, inbred mice still provide very useful animal models with evident advantages when compared with outbred, that is, highly variable, populations.

Keywords

heterozygote selectioninbred strainisogenicitymousemutation
Type
Review
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 1 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acton, RT, Balankenhorn, EP, Douglas, TC, Owen, RD, Hilgers, J, Hoffman, HA, Boyse, EA 1973. Variations among sublines of inbred AKR mice. Nature New Biology 140, 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, DW 1982. How pure are inbred strains of mice? Immunology Today 3, 210–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, JA, Lloyd, S, Hafezparast, M, Lennon-Pierce, M, Eppig, JT, Festing, MF, Fisher, EE 2000. Genealogies of mouse inbred strains. Nature Genetics 24, 23–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, GE 1971. Growth and reproduction in mice selected for rapid body weight gain. Genetics 69, 499–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, GE, Famula, TR 1984. Evidence for a major gene for rapid postweaning growth in mice. Genetical Research 44, 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown-Borg, HM, Borg, KE, Meliska, CJ, Bartke, A 1996. Dwarf mice and the ageing process. Nature 384, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bünger, L, Laidlaw, A, Bulfield, G, Eisen, EJ, Medrano, JF, Bradford, GE, Pirchner, F, Renne, U, Schlote, W, Hill, WG 2001. Inbred lines of mice derived from long-term growth selected lines: unique resource for mapping growth genes. Mammalian Genome 12, 678–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casellas, J, Medrano, JF 2008. Within-generation mutation variance for litter size in inbred mice. Genetics 179, 2147–2155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A, Toro, MA, López-Fanjul, C 1991. The response to artificial selection from new mutations in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 128, 89–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A, Keightley, PD, Hill, WG 1995. Accumulation of mutations affecting body weight in inbred mouse lines. Genetical Research 65, 145–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chai, CK 1969. Effects of inbreeding in rabbits. Inbred lines, discrete characters, breeding performance, and mortality. The Journal of Heredity 60, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciaranello, RD, Lipsky, A, Axelrod, J 1974. Association between fighting behavior and catecholamine biosynthetic enzyme activity in two inbred mouse sublines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 71, 3006–3008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cloudman, AM, Bunker, LE 1945. The varitint-waddler mouse. A dominant mutation in Mus musculus. The Journal of Heredity 36, 259–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice 1952. Standardized nomenclature for inbred strains of mice. Cancer Research 12, 602–613.Google Scholar
Coon, SL, del Olmo, E, Young, WS III, Klein, DC 2002. Melatonin synthesis enzymes in Macaca mulatto: focus on arylalkylamine N-acetyltransferase (EC 2.3.1.87). Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 87, 4699–4706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunliffe-Beamer, TL, Feldman, DB 1976. Vaginal septa in mice: incidence, inheritance, and effect on reproductive performance. Laboratory Animal Science 26, 895–898.Google ScholarPubMed
Dickie, MM 1954. The tortoise shell house mouse. The Journal of Heredity 45, 158–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickie, MM 1962. A new viable yellow mutation in the house mouse. The Journal of Heredity 53, 84–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eicher, EM, Beamer, WG 1976. Inherited ateliotic dwarfism in mice. The Journal of Heredity 67, 87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longmans Green, Harlow, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Festing, MFW 1979. Inbred strains in biomedical research. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1981. Inbreed strains of rats. Behavior Genetics 11, 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festing, MFW 1996. Origins and characteristics of inbred strains of mice. In Genetic variants and strains of the laboratory mouse (ed. MF Lyon, S Rastan and SDM Brown), pp. 1537–1576. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Festing, MFW 1998. Inbred strains of mice and their characteristics. Mouse Genome Informatics, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA.Google Scholar
Fisher, RA 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52, 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, RA 1949. The theory of inbreeding. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburg, UK.Google Scholar
Gemmell, NJ, Slate, J 2006. Heterozygote advantage for fecundity. PLoS One 1, e125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glode, LM, Rosenstreich, DL 1976. Genetic control of B cell activation by bacterial lipopolysaccharidae is mediated by multiple distinct genes or alleles. The Journal of Immunology 117, 2061–2066.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey-Smith, P 2003. Theory and reality: an introduction to the philosophy of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guryev, G, Koudijs, MJ, Berezikov, E, Johnson, SL, Plasterk, RH, van Eeden, FJ, Cuppen, E 2006. Genetic variation in the zebrefish. Genome Research 16, 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartmann, J, Garland, T Jr, Hannon, RM, Kelly, SA, Muñoz, G, Pomp, D 2008. Fine mapping of “mini-muscle”, a recessive mutation causing reduced hindlimb muscle mass in mice. The Journal of Heredity 99, 679–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, WG 1982. Rates of change in quantitative traits from fixation of new mutations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 79, 142–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, WG 2000. A century of corn selection. Science 307, 683–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, DJ 2003. DBA/2 mouse. Science of Aging Knowledge Environment 44, 3.Google Scholar
Horvat, S, Medrano, JM 2001. Lack of Socs2 expression causes the high-growth phenotype in mice. Genomics 72, 209–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houle, D, Huges, KA, Hoffmaster, DK, Ihara, J, Assimacopoulos, S, Canada, D, Charlesworth, B 1994. The effects of spontaneous mutations on quantitative traits. I. Variances and covariances of life history traits. Genetics 138, 773–785.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houle-Leroy, P, Guderley, H, Swallow, JG, Garland, T Jr 2003. Artificial selection for high activity favors mighty mini-muscles in house mice. American Journal of Physiology 284, R433–R443.Google ScholarPubMed
Kasahara, T, Abe, K, Mekada, K, Yoshiki, A, Kato, T 2010. Genetic variation of melatonin productivity in laboratory mice under domestication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 107, 6412–6417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keightley, PD 1998. Genetic basis of response to 50 generations of selection on body weight in inbred mice. Genetics 148, 1931–1939.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keightley, PD, Hill, WG 1992. Quantitative genetic variation in body size of mice from new mutations. Genetics 131, 693–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, S, Crenshaw, BE III, Rawson, EJ, Simmons, DM, Swanson, LW, Rosenfeld, MG 1990. Dwarf locus mutants lacking three pituitary cell types result from mutations in the POU-domain gene pit-1. Nature 347, 528–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, S-C, Lin, CR, Gukovsky, I, Lusis, AJ, Sawchenko, PE, Rosenfeld, MG 1993. Molecular basis of the little mouse phenotype and implications for cell type-specific growth. Nature 364, 208–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loosli, R 1963. Tanoid – a new agouti mutant in the house mouse. The Journal of Heredity 54, 26–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, EM, Gates, WH 1929. Shaker, a new mutation of the house mouse (Mus musculus). The American Naturalist 63, 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M 1988. The rate of polygenic mutation. Genetical Research 51, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M, Blanchard, J, Houle, D, Kibota, T, Schultz, S, Vassilieva, L, Willis, J 1999. Prespective: spontaneous deleterious mutation. Evolution 53, 645–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, JD, Mu, J-L, Cheah, Y-C, Nesbitt, MN, Frankel, WN, Paigen, B 1992. The AXB and BXA set of recombinant inbred mouse strains. Mammalian Genome 3, 669–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nandakumar, KS, Holmdahl, R 2005. A genetic contamination in MHC-congenic mouse strain reveals a locus on chromosome 10 that determines autoimmunity and arthritis susceptibility. European Journal of Immunology 35, 1275–1282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nitzky, F, Kruger, A, Reifenberg, K, Wojnowsky, L, Hahn, H 2007. Identification of a genetic contamination in a commercial mouse strain using two panels of polymorphic markers. Laboratory Animals 41, 218–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niu, Y, Liang, S 2009. Genetic differentiation within the inbred C57BL/6J mouse strain. Journal of Zoology 278, 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peripato, AC, De Brito, RA, Matioli, SR, Pletscher, LS, Vaughn, TT, Cheverud, JM 2005. Epistasis affecting litter size in mice. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17, 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierro, LJ, Chase, HB 1963. Slate – a new coat color mutant in the mouse. The Journal of Heredity 54, 47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A 1962. Selection for heterozygotes in small populations. Genetics 47, 1291–1300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silvers, WK, Gasser, DL 1973. The genetic divergence of sublines as assessed by histocompatibility testing. Genetics 75, 671–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shire, JGM 1984. Studies on the inheritance of vaginal septa in mice, a trait with low penetrance. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 70, 333–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smits, BMG, van Zutphen, BFM, Plasterk, RHA, Cuppen, E 2004. Genetic variation in coding regions between and within commonly used inbred rat strains. Genome Research 14, 1285–1290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soriano, P, Keitges, EA, Schorderet, DF, Harbers, K, Gartler, SM, Jaenisch, R 1987. High rate of recombination and double crossovers in the mouse pseudoautosomal region during male meiosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 84, 7218–7220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taft, RA, Davisson, M, Wiles, MV 2006. Know thy mouse. Trends in Genetics 22, 649–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weatherall, DJ, Clegg, JB 2002. Genetic variability in response to infection: malaria and after. Genes and Immunity 3, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
West, JD, Lyon, MF, Peters, J, Selby, PB 1985. Genetic differences between substrains of the inbred mouse strain 101 and designation of a new strain 102. Genetical Research 46, 349–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whitmore, AC, Whitmore, SP 1985. Subline divergence within L. C. Strongś C3H and CBA inbred mouse strains: a review. Immunogenetics 21, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiles, MV, Taft, R, Eicher, EM 2009. Methods for maintaining genetic stability of inbred animal strains. The Jackson Laboratory, ME, USA. United States Patent 7592501.Google Scholar
Wolfe, HG, Coleman, DL 1964. Mi-spotted, a mutation in the mouse. Genetical Research 5, 432–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, MJ, Islas-Trejo, A, Medrano, JM 2002. Structural characterization of the mouse high growth deletion and discovery of a novel fusion transcript between suppressor of cytokine signaling-2 (Socs-2) and viral encoded semaphorin receptor (Plexin C1). Gene 299, 153–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, NR 1990. Accounting for mutation effects in the additive genetic variance-covariance matrix and its inverse. Biometrics 46, 177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S 1934. The method of path coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 51, 161–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S 1937. The distribution of gene frequencies in populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 23, 307–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S 1960. The genetics of vital characters of the guinea pig. Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology 56 (suppl. 1), 123–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, BH 1980. Long-term selection for quantitative character in large replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Lethal and visible mutants with large effects. Genetical Research 35, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar