ArticleGenetics2007
Nucleotide variation in wild and inbred mice.
Article in Genetics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
76 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coding regions are rarely predefined in the eukaryotic genomes: a note on simplified models of gene architecture.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Different mRNAs encoding identical proteins: how and why?Journal of applied genetics · 2026Article
- Tuberculosis susceptibility in genetically diverse mice reveals functional diversity of neutrophils.eLife · 2025Article
- The mouse resource at National Resource Center for Mutant Mice of China.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Review
- An Ultimate Question for Functional A-to-I mRNA Editing: Why Not a Genomic G?Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Review
- Genetic structure and demographic history of house mice in western Europe inferred using whole-genome sequences.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Systematic revelation and meditation on the significance of long exons using representative eukaryotic genomes.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Purifying Selection Influences the Comparison of Heterozygosities between Populations.Biology · 2024Article
- Bridging the gap between the evolutionary dynamics and the molecular mechanisms of meiosis: A model based exploration of the PRDM9 intra-genomic Red Queen.PLoS genetics · 2024Article
- Inference of selective forces on house mouse genomes during secondary contact in East Asia.Genome research · 2024Article
- Rapid Evolution of the Fine-scale Recombination Landscape in Wild House Mouse (Mus musculus) Populations.Molecular biology and evolution · 2023Article
- Identification of a Chromosome 1 Substitution Line B6-Chr1BLD as a Novel Hyperlipidemia ModelMetabolites · 2022Article
- House mouse subspecies do differ in their social structure.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Population structure and inbreeding in wild house mice (Mus musculus) at different geographic scales.Heredity · 2022Article
- Insights into Mus musculus Population Structure across Eurasia Revealed by Whole-Genome Analysis.Genome biology and evolution · 2022Article
- Prdm9 Intersubspecific Interactions in Hybrid Male Sterility of House Mouse.Molecular biology and evolution · 2020Article
- Further resolution of the house mouse (Mus musculus) phylogeny by integration over isolation-with-migration histories.BMC evolutionary biology · 2020Article
- Genome-Wide Analysis of MicroRNA-related Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) in Mouse Genome.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Significant Strain Variation in the Mutation Spectra of Inbred Laboratory Mice.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Influence of Effective Population Size on Genes under Varying Levels of Selection Pressure.Genome biology and evolution · 2018Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The house mouse is a well-established model organism, particularly for studying the genetics of complex traits. However, most studies of mice use classical inbred strains, whose genomes derive from multiple species. Relatively little is known about the distribution of genetic variation among these species or how variation among strains relates to variation in the wild. We sequenced intronic regions of five X-linked loci in large samples of wild Mus domesticus and M. musculus, and we found low levels of nucleotide diversity in both species. We compared these data to published data from short portions of six X-linked and 18 autosomal loci in wild mice. We estimate that M. domesticus and M. musculus diverged <500,000 years ago. Consistent with this recent divergence, some gene genealogies were reciprocally monophyletic between these species, while others were paraphyletic or polyphyletic. In general, the X chromosome was more differentiated than the autosomes. We resequenced classical inbred strains for all 29 loci and found that inbred strains contain only a small amount of the genetic variation seen in wild mice. Notably, the X chromosome contains proportionately less variation among inbred strains than do the autosomes. Moreover, variation among inbred strains derives from differences between species as well as from differences within species, and these proportions differ in different genomic regions. Wild mice thus provide a reservoir of additional genetic variation that may be useful for mapping studies. Together these results suggest that wild mice will be a valuable complement to laboratory strains for studying the genetics of complex traits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.