ArticleJournal of anatomy2022
Wild versus lab house mice: Effects of age, diet, and genetics on molar geometry and topography.
Article in Journal of anatomy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inner ear morphology in wild versus laboratory house mice.Journal of anatomy · 2024Article
- Article
- Wild versus lab house mice: Effects of age, diet, and genetics on molar geometry and topography.Journal of anatomy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Molar morphology is shaped by phylogenetic history and adaptive processes related to food processing. Topographic parameters of the occlusal surface, such as sharpness and relief, can be especially informative regarding diet preferences of a species. The occlusal surface can however be deeply modified by wear throughout an animal's life, potentially obliterating other signals. Age being difficult to assess in wild populations, especially small rodents, experimental studies of wear through age in laboratory populations may constitute a powerful way to assess its impact on molar geometry and topography, and to validate descriptors of molar morphology that could mitigate this issue. Molar morphology was therefore quantified using 3D geometric morphometrics and topographic estimates in four groups of house mice: wild-trapped mice, lab-bred offspring of these wild mice, typical laboratory mice, and their hybrids. Three descriptors of the molar morphology were considered: the surface of the whole molar row, the surface of the first upper molar, and a truncated template of the first upper molar mimicking advanced wear. Increasing wear with age was demonstrated in the different groups, with a more pronounced effect in the wild-trapped population. The geometry of the molar row is not only modified by wear, but also by the relative position of the late developing molars on the jaw due to loading during mastication. As a consequence, the alignment of the molars is modified in wild mice, showing a qualitative difference between wild animals and their lab-bred offspring. Results obtained from the lab should thus be transferred with caution to the interpretation of differences in wild populations. Topographic estimates computed for the first upper molar seems to provide more stable parameters than those based on the whole molar row, because issues related to non-planar occlusal surface along the molar row are discarded. The truncated template was proven efficient in discarding the wear effect to focus on genetic differences, allowing an efficient characterization of the hybridization signature between wild and lab mice. Dominance of the wild phenotype for the first molar shape supports that the lab strain evolved in a context of relaxation of the selective pressures related to nutrition.
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.