4.7 Article

Genetic variances and covariances of aerobic metabolic rates in laboratory mice

Journal

PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 276, Issue 1673, Pages 3695-3704

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0980

Keywords

heritability; animal model; metabolic rate; genetic correlation; aerobic capacity; endothermy

Funding

  1. NSF IOS [0344994]
  2. Division Of Integrative Organismal Sys
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0344994] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The genetic variances and covariances of traits must be known to predict how they may respond to selection and how covariances among them might affect their evolutionary trajectories. We used the animal model to estimate the genetic variances and covariances of basal metabolic rate (BMR) and maximal metabolic rate (MMR) in a genetically heterogeneous stock of laboratory mice. Narrow-sense heritability (h(2)) was approximately 0.38 +/- 0.08 for body mass, 0.26 +/- 0.08 for whole-animal BMR, 0.24 +/- 0.07 for whole-animal MMR, 0.19 +/- 0.07 for mass-independent BMR, and 0.16 +/- 0.06 for mass-independent MMR. All h(2) estimates were significantly different from zero. The phenotypic correlation of whole animal BMR and MMR was 0.56 +/- 0.02, and the corresponding genetic correlation was 0.79 +/- 0.12. The phenotypic correlation of mass-independent BMR and MMR was 0.13 +/- 0.03, and the corresponding genetic correlation was 0.72 +/- 0.03. The genetic correlations of metabolic rates were significantly different from zero, but not significantly different from one. A key assumption of the aerobic capacity model for the evolution of endothermy is that BMR and MMR are linked. The estimated genetic correlation between BMR and MMR is consistent with that assumption, but the genetic correlation is not so high as to preclude independent evolution of BMR and MMR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available