DOI: 10.25550/3-jz9j
title: Strain Comparison

description: **Abstract(s):** This dataset has been used in various contexts for the study of wildtype phenotypic variation. Examples include: (1) The spatial packing hypothesis: The hypothesis that variation in craniofacial shape within and among species is influenced by spatial packing has a long history in comparative anatomy, particularly in terms of primates. This study develops and tests three alternative models of spatial packing to address how and to what extent the cranial base angle is influenced by variation in brain and facial size. The models are tested using mouse strains with different mutations affecting craniofacial growth. Although mice have distinctive crania with small brains, long faces, and retroflexed cranial bases, the results of the study indicate that the mouse cranial base flexes to accommodate larger brain size relative to cranial base length. In addition, the mouse cranial base also extends, but to a lesser degree, to accommodate larger face size relative to cranial base length. In addition, interactions between brain size, face size, and the widths and lengths of the components of the cranial base account for a large percentage of variation in cranial base angle. The results illustrate the degree to which the cranial base is centrally embedded within the covariation structure of the craniofacial complex as a whole. (2) Brain-face integration: The integration of the brain and face and to what extent this relationship constrains or enables evolutionary change in the craniofacial complex is an issue of long-standing interest in vertebrate evolution. To investigate brain-face integration, we studied the covariation between the forebrain and midface at gestational days 10–10.5 in four strains of laboratory mice. We found that phenotypic variation in the forebrain is highly correlated with that of the face during face formation such that variation in the size of the forebrain correlates with the degree of prognathism and orientation of the facial prominences. This suggests strongly that the integration of the brain and face is relevant to the etiology of midfacial malformations such as orofacial clefts. This axis of integration also has important implications for the evolutionary developmental biology of the mammalian craniofacial complex. (3) Inbred vs. wild covariance: Mutations have the ability to produce dramatic changes to covariance structure by altering the variance of covariance-generating developmental processes. Several evolutionary mechanisms exist that may be acting interdependently to stabilize covariance structure, despite this developmental potential for variation within species. We explore covariance structure in the crania of laboratory mouse mutants exhibiting mild-to-significant developmental perturbations of the cranium, and contrast it with covariance structure in related wild muroid taxa. Phenotypic covariance structure is conserved among wild muroidea, but highly variable and mutation-dependent within the laboratory group. We show that covariance structures in natural populations of related species occupy a more restricted portion of covariance structure space than do the covariance structures resulting from single mutations of significant effect or the almost nonexistent genetic differences that separate inbred mouse strains. Our results suggest that developmental constraint is not the primary mechanism acting to stabilize covariance structure, and imply a more important role for other mechanisms. (4) The Palimpsest model: Organisms represent a complex arrangement of anatomical structures and individuated parts that must maintain functional associations through development. This integration of variation between functionally related body parts and the modular organization of development are fundamental determinants of their evolvability. This is because integration results in the expression of coordinated variation that can create preferred directions for evolutionary change, while modularity enables variation in a group of traits or regions to accumulate without deleterious effects on other aspects of the organism. Using work on both model systems (e.g., lab mice, avians) and natural populations of rodents and primates, the authors explore in this paper the relationship between patterns of phenotypic covariation and the developmental determinants of integration that those patterns are assumed to reflect. They show that integration cannot be reliably studied through phenotypic covariance patterns alone and argue that the relationship between phenotypic covariation and integration is obscured in two ways. One is the superimposition of multiple determinants of covariance in complex systems and the other is the dependence of covariation structure on variances in covariance-generating processes.