| First Author | Martínez-Vargas J | Year | 2018 |
| Journal | Ann Anat | Volume | 215 |
| Pages | 8-19 | PubMed ID | 28935565 |
| Mgi Jnum | J:307997 | Mgi Id | MGI:6727433 |
| Doi | 10.1016/j.aanat.2017.09.001 | Citation | Martinez-Vargas J, et al. (2018) Comparative postnatal histomorphogenesis of the mandible in wild and laboratory mice. Ann Anat 215:8-19 |
| abstractText | The coordinated activity of bone cells (i.e., osteoblasts and osteoclasts) during ontogeny underlies observed changes in bone growth rates (recorded in bone histology and bone microstructure) and bone remodeling patterns explaining the ontogenetic variation in bone size and shape. Histological cross-sections of the mandible in the C57BL/6J inbred mouse strain were recently examined in order to analyze the bone microstructure, as well as the directions and rates of bone growth according to the patterns of fluorescent labeling, with the aim of description of the early postnatal histomorphogenesis of this skeletal structure. Here we use the same approach to characterize the histomorphogenesis of the mandible in wild specimens of Mus musculus domesticus, from the second to the eighth week of postnatal life, for the first time. In addition, we assess the degree of similarity in this biological process between the wild specimens examined and the C57BL/6J laboratory strain. Bone microstructure data show that M. musculus domesticus and the C57BL/6J strain differ in the temporospatial pattern of histological maturation of the mandible, which particularly precludes the support of mandibular organization into the alveolar region and the ascending ramus modules at the histological level in M. musculus domesticus. The patterns of fluorescent labeling reveal that the mandible of the wild mice exhibits temporospatial differences in the remodeling pattern, as well as higher growth rates particularly after weaning, compared to the laboratory mice. Since the two mouse groups were reared under the same conditions, the dissimilarities found suggest the existence of differences between the groups in the genetic regulation of bone remodeling, probably as a result of their different genetic backgrounds. Despite the usual suitability of inbred mouse strains as model organisms, inferences from them to natural populations regarding bone growth should be made with caution. |
