Literature DB >> 21734011

Genetic analysis in the Collaborative Cross breeding population.

Vivek M Philip1, Greta Sokoloff, Cheryl L Ackert-Bicknell, Martin Striz, Lisa Branstetter, Melissa A Beckmann, Jason S Spence, Barbara L Jackson, Leslie D Galloway, Paul Barker, Ann M Wymore, Patricia R Hunsicker, David C Durtschi, Ginger S Shaw, Sarah Shinpock, Kenneth F Manly, Darla R Miller, Kevin D Donohue, Cymbeline T Culiat, Gary A Churchill, William R Lariviere, Abraham A Palmer, Bruce F O'Hara, Brynn H Voy, Elissa J Chesler.   

Abstract

Genetic reference populations in model organisms are critical resources for systems genetic analysis of disease related phenotypes. The breeding history of these inbred panels may influence detectable allelic and phenotypic diversity. The existing panel of common inbred strains reflects historical selection biases, and existing recombinant inbred panels have low allelic diversity. All such populations may be subject to consequences of inbreeding depression. The Collaborative Cross (CC) is a mouse reference population with high allelic diversity that is being constructed using a randomized breeding design that systematically outcrosses eight founder strains, followed by inbreeding to obtain new recombinant inbred strains. Five of the eight founders are common laboratory strains, and three are wild-derived. Since its inception, the partially inbred CC has been characterized for physiological, morphological, and behavioral traits. The construction of this population provided a unique opportunity to observe phenotypic variation as new allelic combinations arose through intercrossing and inbreeding to create new stable genetic combinations. Processes including inbreeding depression and its impact on allelic and phenotypic diversity were assessed. Phenotypic variation in the CC breeding population exceeds that of existing mouse genetic reference populations due to both high founder genetic diversity and novel epistatic combinations. However, some focal evidence of allele purging was detected including a suggestive QTL for litter size in a location of changing allele frequency. Despite these inescapable pressures, high diversity and precision for genetic mapping remain. These results demonstrate the potential of the CC population once completed and highlight implications for development of related populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21734011      PMCID: PMC3149490          DOI: 10.1101/gr.113886.110

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genome Res        ISSN: 1088-9051            Impact factor:   9.043


  46 in total

1.  Genetic variation in liver mass, body mass, and liver:body mass in mice.

Authors:  L D Jones; M K Nielsen; R A Britton
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  A large-sample QTL study in mice: III. Reproduction.

Authors:  Joao L Rocha; Eugene J Eisen; Frank Siewerdt; L Dale Van Vleck; Daniel Pomp
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 2.957

3.  Biological reconstruction after resection of bone tumours around the knee: long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Y Y Abed; G Beltrami; D A Campanacci; M Innocenti; G Scoccianti; R Capanna
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-10

4.  Response to 30 generations of selection for open-field activity in laboratory mice.

Authors:  J C DeFries; M C Gervais; E A Thomas
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1978-01       Impact factor: 2.805

5.  A high-resolution association mapping panel for the dissection of complex traits in mice.

Authors:  Brian J Bennett; Charles R Farber; Luz Orozco; Hyun Min Kang; Anatole Ghazalpour; Nathan Siemers; Michael Neubauer; Isaac Neuhaus; Roumyana Yordanova; Bo Guan; Amy Truong; Wen-pin Yang; Aiqing He; Paul Kayne; Peter Gargalovic; Todd Kirchgessner; Calvin Pan; Lawrence W Castellani; Emrah Kostem; Nicholas Furlotte; Thomas A Drake; Eleazar Eskin; Aldons J Lusis
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2010-01-06       Impact factor: 9.043

6.  Epistasis affecting litter size in mice.

Authors:  A C Peripato; R A De Brito; S R Matioli; L S Pletscher; T T Vaughn; J M Cheverud
Journal:  J Evol Biol       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.411

7.  Dietary obesity linked to genetic loci on chromosomes 9 and 15 in a polygenic mouse model.

Authors:  D B West; J Goudey-Lefevre; B York; G E Truett
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 14.808

8.  The Collaborative Cross, developing a resource for mammalian systems genetics: a status report of the Wellcome Trust cohort.

Authors:  Fuad A Iraqi; Gary Churchill; Richard Mott
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2008-06-03       Impact factor: 2.957

9.  High-throughput behavioral phenotyping in the expanded panel of BXD recombinant inbred strains.

Authors:  V M Philip; S Duvvuru; B Gomero; T A Ansah; C D Blaha; M N Cook; K M Hamre; W R Lariviere; D B Matthews; G Mittleman; D Goldowitz; E J Chesler
Journal:  Genes Brain Behav       Date:  2009-09-22       Impact factor: 3.449

10.  A new set of BXD recombinant inbred lines from advanced intercross populations in mice.

Authors:  Jeremy L Peirce; Lu Lu; Jing Gu; Lee M Silver; Robert W Williams
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2004-04-29       Impact factor: 2.797

View more
  91 in total

1.  Properties and power of the Drosophila Synthetic Population Resource for the routine dissection of complex traits.

Authors:  Elizabeth G King; Stuart J Macdonald; Anthony D Long
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-04-13       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Ten years of the Collaborative Cross.

Authors:  David W Threadgill; Gary A Churchill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Translating cancer 'omics' to improved outcomes.

Authors:  Emily A Vucic; Kelsie L Thu; Keith Robison; Leszek A Rybaczyk; Raj Chari; Carlos E Alvarez; Wan L Lam
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 4.  High-Diversity Mouse Populations for Complex Traits.

Authors:  Michael C Saul; Vivek M Philip; Laura G Reinholdt; Elissa J Chesler
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 11.639

5.  How to build a better mouse.

Authors:  Ewen Callaway
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 6.  Model organism data evolving in support of translational medicine.

Authors:  Douglas G Howe; Judith A Blake; Yvonne M Bradford; Carol J Bult; Brian R Calvi; Stacia R Engel; James A Kadin; Thomas C Kaufman; Ranjana Kishore; Stanley J F Laulederkind; Suzanna E Lewis; Sierra A T Moxon; Joel E Richardson; Cynthia Smith
Journal:  Lab Anim (NY)       Date:  2018-09-17       Impact factor: 12.625

Review 7.  After GWAS: mice to the rescue?

Authors:  Joerg Ermann; Laurie H Glimcher
Journal:  Curr Opin Immunol       Date:  2012-09-29       Impact factor: 7.486

Review 8.  Natural genetic variability of the neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunit genes in mice: Consequences and confounds.

Authors:  Jennifer A Wilking; Jerry A Stitzel
Journal:  Neuropharmacology       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 5.250

Review 9.  The Collaborative Cross mouse model for dissecting genetic susceptibility to infectious diseases.

Authors:  Hanifa Abu Toamih Atamni; Aysar Nashef; Fuad A Iraqi
Journal:  Mamm Genome       Date:  2018-08-24       Impact factor: 2.957

10.  Genetic background influences the impact of KLOTHO deficiency.

Authors:  Jawad S Salloum; Diane E Garsetti; Melissa B Rogers
Journal:  Physiol Genomics       Date:  2020-09-21       Impact factor: 3.107

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.