• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

小鼠下颌大小的嵌合杂种优势。

Chimeric heterosis in mandibular size in mice.

作者信息

Goto N, Fukuta K, Imamura K, Ohnishi A, Mikami H

机构信息

Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University, Japan.

出版信息

Jikken Dobutsu. 1988 Jan;37(1):45-51. doi: 10.1538/expanim1978.37.1_45.

DOI:10.1538/expanim1978.37.1_45
PMID:3366190
Abstract

Morphometrical observations were carried out on the mandibles of chimeras made from the embryos of C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice to compare with the two strains and their reciprocal F1 crosses. The results of the principal component analysis indicate that the first principal component (PC1) and the second principal component (PC2) extracted might be acceptable as size and shape factors, respectively. Variations of both PC1 and PC2 were generally larger in the chimeras than in the two component strains and their F1 crosses. The mean PC1 value of the chimeras was larger than that of the two component inbred strains, and it was similar to that of F1 crosses, or slightly larger. The overall size of the mandible represented by PC1 tended to be larger in the chimeras consisting of two component cells that were approximately equivalent than in those that shifted to either cell population. The above trend was observed in both sexes. These results indicate that chimeric heterosis due to the interaction between genetically different cells (C57BL/6 and BALB/c) has some relation to mandible size. The mean PC2 value, which was accepted as shape factor, was intermediate between the two inbred strains. The mandible size (PC1) and shape (PC2) were bilaterally symmetrical, except for the shape in the female chimeras and in (C57BL/6 x BALB/c)F1.

摘要

对由C57BL/6和BALB/c小鼠胚胎制成的嵌合体的下颌骨进行了形态测量观察,以与这两个品系及其相互的F1杂交后代进行比较。主成分分析结果表明,提取的第一主成分(PC1)和第二主成分(PC2)可能分别作为大小和形状因素是可以接受的。嵌合体中PC1和PC2的变异通常比两个组成品系及其F1杂交后代中的变异更大。嵌合体的平均PC1值大于两个组成近交系的平均PC1值,与F1杂交后代的相似,或略大。由两个大致相等的组成细胞组成的嵌合体中,以PC1表示的下颌骨总体大小往往比偏向任何一个细胞群体的嵌合体更大。在两性中均观察到上述趋势。这些结果表明,由于基因不同的细胞(C57BL/6和BALB/c)之间的相互作用导致的嵌合杂种优势与下颌骨大小有一定关系。被视为形状因素的平均PC2值介于两个近交系之间。除了雌性嵌合体和(C57BL/6×BALB/c)F1中的形状外,下颌骨大小(PC1)和形状(PC2)是双侧对称的。

相似文献

1
Chimeric heterosis in mandibular size in mice.小鼠下颌大小的嵌合杂种优势。
Jikken Dobutsu. 1988 Jan;37(1):45-51. doi: 10.1538/expanim1978.37.1_45.
2
[Moss fiber distribution in the hippocampus of chimeric mice].
Anat Anz. 1989;168(3):223-7.
3
Shape variation in cranium, mandible and teeth in selected mouse strains.颅骨、下颌骨和牙齿在选定的小鼠品系中的形态变异。
Anat Histol Embryol. 2024 Jul;53(4):e13064. doi: 10.1111/ahe.13064.
4
[The reproductive performance of XX/XY male chimeric mice].[XX/XY雄性嵌合小鼠的生殖性能]
Jikken Dobutsu. 1985 Oct;34(4):433-7. doi: 10.1538/expanim1978.34.4_433.
5
[Genotypic status of different tissues and organs in aggregated chimeras of BALB/c----C57BL/10 and BALB/c----B10.D2 with discovered chimeric drift].
Biull Eksp Biol Med. 1988 Oct;106(10):484-7.
6
[An analysis of parthogenetic cell clones in chimeric C57BL/6(PG)<-->BALB/c mice].[嵌合型C57BL/6(PG)<-->BALB/c小鼠孤雌生殖细胞克隆的分析]
Ontogenez. 1999 Jan-Feb;30(1):64-70.
7
Appearance of interfrontal bone in chimeric mouse.嵌合小鼠额间骨的外观
Jikken Dobutsu. 1988 Apr;37(2):165-70. doi: 10.1538/expanim1978.37.2_165.
8
[Chimeric drift in blood erythrocyte population in BALB/c----C57BL/10 and BALB----B10.D2 mice].
Biull Eksp Biol Med. 1988 Sep;106(9):344-7.
9
Type II collagen-induced murine arthritis: induction of arthritis depends on antigen-presenting cell function as well as susceptibility of host to an anticollagen immune response.II型胶原诱导的小鼠关节炎:关节炎的诱导取决于抗原呈递细胞的功能以及宿主对抗胶原免疫反应的易感性。
J Immunol. 1992 May 15;148(10):3093-9.
10
Finite element method comparison of murine mandibular form differences.
J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol. 1988;8(1):3-20.