4.2 Article

The eye of the laboratory mouse remains anatomically adapted for natural conditions

Journal

BRAIN BEHAVIOR AND EVOLUTION
Volume 67, Issue 1, Pages 39-52

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000088857

Keywords

mouse; eye; photoreceptor; ganglion cell; evolution; domestication; vision; mammal

Funding

  1. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R29EY012146, R01EY012146] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG013711] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY012146, R29 EY012146, R01 EY012146-06A1, EY12146] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIA NIH HHS [AG13711, R01 AG013711] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evolutionary effects of domestication have been demonstrated for several body systems, including the eye, and for several vertebrate species, including the mouse. Given the importance of the laboratory mouse to vision science, we wished to determine whether the anatomical and histological features of the eyes of laboratory mice are distinct from those of their naturally adapted, wild counterparts. We measured dimensions and masses of whole eyes and lenses from a wild population plus three inbred strains (C57BL/6J, NZB/BINJ, and DBA/1J) of the house house, Mus musculus, as well as wild and outbred laboratory-domesticated stock of the deer mouse, Peromyscus maniculatus. Histological preparations from these eyes were used to determine outer nuclear layer thickness, linear density of the ganglion cell layer, and for indirect immunofluorescence evaluation of cone opsin expression. For all of these traits, no statistically significant differences were found between any laboratory strain and its wild counterpart. The evolutionary effects of domestication of mice therefore do not include changes to the eye in any variable measured, supporting the continued use of this animal as a model for a naturally adapted visual system. Copyright (c) 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available