Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Insights into mammalian biology from the wild house mouse Mus musculus

Megan Phifer-Rixey, Michael W Nachman

eLife · 2015 · CC BY

doi:10.7554/elife.05959

Abstract

The house mouse, Mus musculus, was established in the early 1900s as one of the first genetic model organisms owing to its short generation time, comparatively large litters, ease of husbandry, and visible phenotypic variants. For these reasons and because they are mammals, house mice are well suited to serve as models for human phenotypes and disease. House mice in the wild consist of at least three distinct subspecies and harbor extensive genetic and phenotypic variation both within and between these subspecies. Wild mice have been used to study a wide range of biological processes, including immunity, cancer, male sterility, adaptive evolution, and non-Mendelian inheritance. Despite the extensive variation that exists among wild mice, classical laboratory strains are derived from a limited set of founders and thus contain only a small subset of this variation. Continued efforts to study wild house mice and to create new inbred strains from wild populations have the potential to strengthen house mice as a model system.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Today, house mice (Mus musculus) are widely known as an excellent mammalian model for studying a wide variety of traits and diseases, including those involved in metabolism, development, neurological disorders, immunity, and others. At the beginning of the 20th century, however, Mendel's work had only recently been rediscovered and the race was on to develop genetic model systems. In a series of papers from 1902–1905, Lucien Cuénot used mice to demonstrate Mendel's laws for the first time in mammals. Around the same time, William E Castle, a pioneer of the use of Drosophila to study genetics, also began investigating the inheritance of coat color in mice. The Castle lab and others launched research programs focused on mouse genetics, and soon realised the need to create inbred strains (see Box 1 for a glossary of specialist terms used in this article) of mice (e.g.,;;;, ). By 1909, the first inbred strain, DBA, was created and the era of modern mouse genetics had begun. Since then, hundreds of inbred strains have been developed.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05959.002

The success of the house mouse as a genetic model organism is largely due to its unique natural history. In this article, we briefly introduce the evolutionary and natural history of house mice, as well as the origins of laboratory strains (Box 2). We highlight several examples in which wild house mice have provided important insights into mammalian biology and suggest future avenues for research.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05959.003

Phylogenetic history

House mice comprise three main subspecies of M. musculus with different global distributions: Mus musculus castaneus, Mus musculus domesticus and Mus musculus musculus (Figure 1). Their closest relatives are not human commensals (see ‘Glossary’) and include the mound building mouse, Mus spicilegus, and the Algerian mouse, Mus spretus. The ancestral range for M. musculus was likely in present-day India. Genetic and genomic data indicate that the three subspecies of M. musculus started to diverge ∼350–500 thousand years ago (KYA) and that the split among the three subspecies occurred within a short period of time. Nonetheless, the available evidence suggests that M. m. castaneus and M. m. musculus are more closely related to each other than either is to M. m. domesticus. There is evidence of hybridization among the subspecies in zones of secondary contact. An additional subspecies, Mus musculus molossinus, is found in Japan and is derived from hybridization between M. m. castaneus and M. m. musculus. Classical inbred strains of house mice are genetic mosaics of the three main subspecies, although they are primarily M. m. domesticus in origin. Interestingly, contributions from the other two subspecies may be due to early crosses with M. m. molossinus, likely as a result of interactions between mouse fanciers in Japan and Western Europe. A fifth subspecies, Mus musculus gentilulus, has been described from collections in the southern Arabian Peninsula. Additional subspecies may yet be defined. In particular, populations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran may be genetically distinct.

Habitat and life style

Unique among other species in the genus Mus, house mice primarily live in close proximity to humans. Although feral populations exist, house mice are commonly found in residential, agricultural, and commercial structures. The rise of agrarian societies is very recent compared to the divergence among house mice subspecies, indicating that commensalism evolved independently in each of the three subspecies. House mice are omnivorous with varied diets including grains, seeds, and insects. They generally weigh less than 20 grams and serve as food for predatory snakes, birds and mammals. Laboratory mice tolerate regular handling by humans and live and breed in a small area. Their commensal life style, small size, and flexible diet have likely been key to their success as a model system.

Reproduction and social structure

The reproductive biology of mice is also favorable for laboratory breeding. Mice have short generation times; gestation lasts approximately 3 weeks and they are sexually mature at 6–8 weeks of age. Thus, generation times in the lab are between 9 and 11 weeks. In the wild, females may breed seasonally with one or two litters per year or they may breed year round if resources are available (; reviewed in; ). In the lab, with unlimited food and good environmental conditions, females can breed year round. Litter sizes in the wild are large (∼4–9 pups), a trait that facilitates the efficient generation of inbred strains (see; ). House mice in the wild have variable social structures, ranging from discrete ‘demes’ with a single male and one to several adult females and juveniles, to high-density aggregations in which adults are socially gregarious and have largely overlapping ranges. While males can be territorial, females are known to mate with multiple males. Female house mice tend to live in extended family groups and can nest communally and nurse offspring communally (reviewed in ). Mice found in a limited geographic area are likely to be related, and the average inbreeding coefficient (see ‘Glossary’) of wild-caught mice in one study was ∼0.2. This natural level of inbreeding may help to purge recessive deleterious alleles and may have facilitated the creation of inbred strains in the laboratory.

Disease

Wild mice can carry a variety of diseases, including mouse hepatitis virus, mouse mammary tumor virus and mouse parvovirus. They can also be vectors for human diseases, such as leptospirosis, cryptosporidiosis, salmonellosis, and streptobacillosis (summarized in ). However, unlike rats, they are not known to be major vectors of the plague or of hemorrhagic fevers like hantavirus. They are commonly parasitized by tapeworms, flukes, fleas and lice. As such, wild mice are routinely quarantined before they enter mouse facilities.

Phenotypic variation

Wild house mice (Figure 2) exhibit considerable phenotypic variation, and it is likely that much more remains to be described. In association with humans, house mice have been spread around the world and have adapted to a wide range of environments (e.g., ). Mice can be found from sea level to over 4000 m in elevation, from the tropics to subarctic environments, and in both dry and wet environments. Studies of water balance in wild populations suggest that house mice can adapt to arid habitats.

Phenotypic variation among wild house mice has been described along environmental gradients. For example, surveyed populations of house mice on the east coast of the United States and found that mice from more northern latitudes were bigger and built bigger nests than those from more southern populations. These differences persisted in the lab over several generations, demonstrating a genetic basis. Selection experiments also provide evidence that house mice have the ability to rapidly adapt to cold temperatures. Wild mice bred at 3°C for 10 generations were more fertile, with larger litters of larger body size, and reached sexual maturity earlier than mice bred at 23°C. Rapid phenotypic change has occurred on many islands, including shifts in size, morphology, and diet (e.g., Berry et al., 1978;;; ). One example comes from mice on Gough Island, a small island in the Atlantic Ocean approximately halfway between South Africa and Argentina. House mice were likely introduced to this island by sealers or whalers in the 19th century and are the only terrestrial mammals living on it. Gough Island mice live independently of humans, are large compared to European house mice, and eat seabird chicks, including those of the critically endangered Tristan albatross (e.g.,;; ). These mice are alarming from a conservation perspective, but they are intriguing from an evolutionary one. Variation in natural populations is fertile ground for exploring the genetic basis of complex traits. Such efforts could add to the decades of study of complex traits in inbred strains of mice (such as body size,; ).

Genetic variation

Populations of wild house mice exhibit levels of genetic variation that are several-fold higher than those seen in human populations, consistent with the larger effective population size for house mice. Patterns of genetic variation in natural populations have provided insight into the demographic and evolutionary history of wild mice (e.g.,;;; ) and have helped us to understand how natural selection has shaped patterns of genetic variation (e.g.,,;; for review, ). For example, some beneficial variants appear to have come from introgression between subspecies or between closely related species.

Despite the substantial level of genetic variation seen in wild house mice, the commonly used classical inbred strains of laboratory mice derive from a limited set of founders and thus contain only a small subset of the genetic variation that is seen in nature. As a result, there are many genomic ‘blind spots’ in crosses involving classical inbred strains. Since the 1970's, new inbred lines have been established using wild mice. Levels of diversity are much higher among these wild-derived inbred strains than among classical inbred strains (e.g.,; ). Several recent outcrossed populations have also been developed from classical and wild-derived inbred strains, including the Heterogeneous Stock mice and the Collaborative Cross mice. Both of these outbred mapping populations contain more genetic variation than do mice derived from crossing classical inbred lines, and they also have more recombination, permitting traits of interest to be mapped with improved resolution. However, they are not without their limitations. First, much of the genetic variation is due to differences between subspecies. Second, since crosses between subspecies result in partial hybrid sterility, selection effectively eliminates genetic variation in some regions of the genome in these crosses. Third, mapping intervals are not typically at the resolution of individual genes. The development of additional inbred lines of wild-derived mice should help address these limitations and augment existing resources.

Insights from wild house mice

Here, we briefly highlight a few examples in which studies of wild house mice have provided insight into fundamental questions concerning mammalian biology. This is not a comprehensive review; research on wild house mice encompasses a diverse range of topics, only some of which are touched on here. For more information, we refer readers to ‘The mouse in biomedical research’, ‘The genus Mus as a model for evolutionary studies’ and ‘Evolution of the house mouse’.

Immunity: the Major Histocompatibility Complex

The Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) is a family of strikingly polymorphic genes that have a critically important role in the immune response of vertebrates. Proteins encoded by MHC genes bind peptides derived from pathogens and present them on the cell surface for recognition by T cells. MHC genes were first discovered in classical inbred strains of house mice (reviewed in,; ). Wild house mice have also played a major role in advancing our understanding of the MHC. For example, the high level of variation seen at MHC genes was first discovered in populations of wild mice and has since been documented in many other vertebrates. This discovery spawned a considerable amount of research aimed at understanding the evolutionary forces that maintain such diversity. These studies have led to some intriguing findings regarding the possible functional significance of MHC diversity in wild mice and other organisms. One area of particular interest is mate choice. Data suggest that individual mice prefer mates with dissimilar MHC haplotypes, a form of disassortative mating (e.g.,; reviewed in ). Such mating preferences could function to improve offspring resistance to pathogens, reduce inbreeding, or both. However, the relative importance of MHC in mate choice in wild populations remains unresolved; there are many other factors that have been shown to affect mate choice. Moreover, the specific mechanism by which individuals identify MHC-dissimilar individuals remains obscure.

Cancer: retroviruses and the Lake Casitas mice

In the late 1960's, virally induced cancers were known to occur in laboratory mice and in chickens, but had yet to be discovered in humans. Robert Huebner and Murray Gardner hypothesized that resistance to viral cancer was likely present in wild mouse populations but had been lost in laboratory strains through inbreeding. Gardner embarked on a mission to sample wild populations of house mice. While he found disease-free mice at most sites, at a poultry farm near Lake Casitas in California, he found ∼85% of the mice carried murine leukemia virus (MuLV). Infected mice developed severe lymphoma and/or hind limb paralysis after sexual maturity. Despite the severity of the disease and evidence of transmission, the population did not crash and many mice were apparently unaffected. Gardener and his colleague, Stephen O'Brien, hypothesized that an anti-retroviral genetic element was segregating in the Lake Casitas mice, protecting some from infection. This proved to be the case; they found an allele at a single locus that conferred complete resistance in homozygotes and was inherited in a Mendelian fashion. Researchers in Japan independently identified a common viral cancer, as well as endogenous retroviral sequences (see ‘Glossary’) in M. m. molossinus. Ultimately, it was shown that resistance in the two populations localized to the same gene.

How did the resistance allele prevent infection? And why were two mouse populations on either side of the Pacific Ocean, thought to be different subspecies, polymorphic for the same protective allele? The resistance locus was itself a truncated endogenous retrovirus in which only the subunit responsible for the creation of the viral envelope remained intact (see ‘Glossary’). When a virus replicates in a cell, some of its envelope proteins bind to receptors on the cell, preventing additional viruses from entering. Thus, resistance to MuLV in the Lake Casitas and Japanese mice was conferred by cells that produce harmless endogenous viral envelope proteins, blocking the binding of the virulent MuLV viruses. These populations of mice share the resistance allele because they have a shared evolutionary history. Japanese mice descend from hybridization between M. m. castaneus from Southern China and M. m. musculus from northern China. While the resistance gene and the virus were undetected in M. m. musculus, they were both found in M. m. castaneus. Although mice in North America were originally believed to be entirely of M. m. domesticus origin, the Lake Casitas mice are hybrids of M. m. domesticus and M. m. castaneus. The Lake Casitas farm was originally settled by immigrants from China in the 19th century, who likely brought M. m. castaneus with them. The Lake Casitas mice have provided insight into the mechanisms of resistance to retroviruses, the dynamics of disease outbreaks, and the origins of sequences derived from retroviruses found throughout vertebrate genomes, including humans.

Structural rearrangements and non-Mendelian inheritance

Two kinds of structural rearrangements in the genomes of wild mice have provided insight into genome evolution and into chromosome transmission during meiosis: Robertsonian (whole-arm) chromosomal translocations (also called fusions) and t-haplotypes, which are associated with chromosomal inversions (see ‘Glossary’). The karyotype of wild mice typically consists of 2n = 40 acrocentric chromosomes. However, numerous populations exist within the subspecies M. m. domesticus in which the diploid number is as low as 2n = 22 as a result of Robertsonian fusions between two different acrocentric chromosomes, creating a metacentric chromosome (e.g.,; ). Otherwise indistinguishable from mice with the standard karyotype, some karyotypic races show some reproductive isolation as a consequence of the mis-pairing of chromosomal heterozygotes in hybrids and the production of aneuploid gametes or complete meiotic arrest (reviewed in ). Interestingly, some Robertsonian heterozygotes show transmission distortion in meiosis, preferentially transmitting the acrocentric products (instead of the fused, metacentric chromosome) to the oocytes in female meiosis. In these cases, the metacentric chromosomes are preferentially distributed to the first polar body.

T-haplotypes are meiotic-drive systems (see ‘Glossary’) found at low frequency in natural populations. T-alleles are associated with inversions on chromosome 17, and they show a strong transmission distortion in meiosis, with heterozygotes transmitting the t-bearing allele to over 90% of gametes. The responder locus (see ‘Glossary’) was first identified and molecularly characterized 15 years ago, but transmission distortion was first documented in 1927 (reviewed in; ). Decades of research have made t-haplotypes one of the best-studied meiotic-drive systems in any organism, providing a model for understanding non-Mendelian inheritance.

Adaptation: rodenticide resistance

One consequence of a commensal lifestyle is an ongoing arms race with humans intent on extirpating mice and reducing food loss and the spread of disease. Warfarin-based rodenticides were introduced in the 1950's and have been periodically replaced by other rodenticides that have anticoagulant properties owing to the development of resistance among rats and mice (e.g., reviewed in;; ). The study of rodenticide resistance in wild populations has provided insights into the molecular biology and biochemistry of anticoagulants and mechanisms of resistance to those agents. Importantly, the spread of rodenticide resistance has also led to insights into the process of adaptation (e.g.,,; ). For example, found that an allele of the mouse gene Vkorc1, which underlies resistance to warfarin in M. m. domesticus, resulted from adaptive introgressive hybridization (see ‘Glossary’) with the Algerian mouse (M. spretus). This study is one of many recent studies that highlight that adaptive introgression is an often overlooked source of new variation in animals.

Speciation and hybrid male sterility

Laboratory crosses between some subspecies of house mice produce hybrid males that are sterile or have reduced fertility (e.g.,; ). In nature, house mouse subspecies hybridize where they meet in secondary contact. The best-studied hybrid zone is between M. m. domesticus and M. m. musculus in Central Europe (e.g.,;,;;;;; ). This hybrid zone is young; colonization of this area is relatively recent (∼3000 YA; for example,; reviewed in ). Studies of this hybrid zone, and of laboratory crosses between these subspecies, have helped us to understand speciation genetics, particularly the genetic basis of hybrid male sterility (e.g.,;; ). For example, evidence from natural populations and from laboratory crosses has revealed an important role of the X chromosome in reproductive incompatibilities, a pattern that appears to be quite general across animals. Studies of wild house mice have also found that hybrid male sterility has a complex basis, involving many genes. Laboratory crosses between M. m. domesticus and M. m. musculus also led to the positional cloning of Prdm9, the only gene known to contribute to hybrid sterility in vertebrates. This gene has a role in recombination rate variation in both mice and humans (e.g.,;; ). The identification of other genes underlying hybrid male sterility remains a challenge, but the combination of mapping studies in the lab and studies of regions showing limited introgression in nature might identify good candidates for future study.

Conclusions: the next frontiers

As outlined in Box 3, much remains to be learned about wild mice, even in the areas of research highlighted above. Genetic variation, phenotypic variation, variation in disease and parasite load remain uncharacterized in many wild populations throughout the world. The genetic bases for adaptive phenotypes are largely unknown. Contact zones between subspecies outside of Europe are mostly unexplored. Wild mice are an untapped reservoir of genetic variation. The generation of new wild-derived inbred strains would add a valuable component to existing mouse resources by adding new genetic variants. Moreover, since haplotype blocks are much shorter in wild mice than in classical inbred strains, association mapping (see ‘Glossary’) with wild mice could help link individual genes to phenotypic differences. New more efficient genome-editing methods will also enable the direct testing of the effects of wild alleles on phenotypes. Thus, there is great potential for wild mice to continue to fuel new advances in the biosciences.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05959.005

References 128

  1. 1.

    Ardlie KG, Silver LM. Low frequency of mouse t haplotypes in wild populations is not explained by modifiers of meiotic drive. Genetics. 1996;144:1787-1797.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/144.4.1787

  2. 2.

    Baird SJE, Macholán M, Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. What can the Mus musculus musculus/M. m. domesticus hybrid zone tell us about speciation? Evolution of the house mouse. 2012;334-372.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Barnett SA, Dickson RG. Changes among wild house mice (Mus musculus) bred for ten generations in a cold environment and their evolutionary implications. Journal of Zoology. 1984;203:163-180.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-7998.1984.tb02324.x

  4. 4.

    Baudat F, Buard J, Grey C, Fledel-Alon A, Ober C, Przeworski M, Coop G, de Massy B. PRDM9 is a major determinant of meiotic recombination hotspots in humans and mice. Science. 2010;327:836-840.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1183439

  5. 5.

    Berg IL, Neumann R, Lam KW, Sarbajna S, Odenthal-Hesse L, May CA, Jeffreys AJ. PRDM9 variation strongly influences recombination hot-spot activity and meiotic instability in humans. Nature Genetics. 2010;42:859-863.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.658

  6. 6.

    Berry RJ, Peters JP, Van Aarde RJ. Sub‐antarctic house mice, colonization, survival and selection. Journal of Zoology. 1978;184:127-141.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-7998.1978.tb03270.x

  7. 7.

    Bonhomme F, Rivals E, Orth A, Grant GR, Jeffreys AJ, Bois PR. Species-wide distribution of highly polymorphic minisatellite markers suggests past and present genetic exchanges among house mouse subspecies. Genome Biology. 2007;8:R80.

    Not in our library10.1186/gb-2007-8-5-r80

  8. 8.

    Boursot P, Auffray JC, Britton-Davidian J, Bonhomme F. The evolution of house mice. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 1993;24:119-152.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.es.24.110193.001003

  9. 9.

    Britton-Davidian J, Fel-Clair F, Lopez J, Alibert P, Boursot P. Postzygotic isolation between the two European subspecies of the house mouse: estimates from fertility patterns in wild and laboratory-bred hybrids. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2005;84:379-393.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00441.x

  10. 10.

    Britton-Davidian J, Searle J. The genus Mus as a model for evolutionary studies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2005;84:321-674.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00490.x

  11. 11.

    Buckle A. Anticoagulant resistance in the UK and a new guideline for the management of resistant infestations of Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus Berk.). Pest Management Science. 2011;69:334-341.

    Not in our library10.1002/ps.3309

  12. 12.

    Capanna E, Civitelli MV, Cristaldi M. A chromosomal polymorphism in an alpine population of Mus musculus. L. Bolletino Di Zoologia. 1973;40:379-383.

    Not in our library10.1080/11250007309429254

  13. 13.

    Castle WE, Allen GM. The heredity of albinism. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 1903;38:603-622.

    Not in our library

  14. 14.

    Castle WE, Little CC. On a modified Mendelian ratio among yellow mice. Science. 1910;32:868-870.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.32.833.868

  15. 15.

    Cheverud JM, Eisen EJ. Genetics of growth in the mouse. Mouse in animal genetics and breeding research. 2005;113-130.

    Not in our library

  16. 16.

    Chevret P, Veyrunes F, Britton-Davidian J. Molecular phylogeny of the genus Mus (Rodentia: Murinae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear data. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2005;84:417-427.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00444.x

  17. 17.

    Churchill GA, Airey DC, Allayee H, Angel JM, Attie AD, Beatty J, Beavis WD, Belknap JK, Bennett B, Berrettini W, Bleich A, Bogue M, Broman KW, Buck KJ, Buckler E, Burmeister M, Chesler EJ, Cheverud JM, Clapcote S, Cook MN, Cox RD, Crabbe JC, Crusio WE, Darvasi A, Deschepper CF, Doerge RW, Farber CR, Forejt J, Gaile D, Garlow SJ, Geiger H, Gershenfeld H, Gordon T, Gu J, Gu W, de Haan G, Hayes NL, Heller C, Himmelbauer H, Hitzemann R, Hunter K, Hsu HC, Iraqi FA, Ivandic B, Jacob HJ, Jansen RC, Jepsen KJ, Johnson DK, Johnson TE, Kempermann G, Kendziorski C, Kotb M, Kooy RF, Llamas B, Lammert F, Lassalle JM, Lowenstein PR, Lu L, Lusis A, Manly KF, Marcucio R, Matthews D, Medrano JF, Miller DR, Mittleman G, Mock BA, Mogil JS, Montagutelli X, Morahan G, Morris DG, Mott R, Nadeau JH, Nagase H, Nowakowski RS, O'Hara BF, Osadchuk AV, Page GP, Paigen B, Paigen K, Palmer AA, Pan HJ, Peltonen-Palotie L, Peirce J, Pomp D, Pravenec M, Prows DR, Qi Z, Reeves RH, Roder J, Rosen GD, Schadt EE, Schalkwyk LC, Seltzer Z, Shimomura K, Shou S, Sillanpää MJ, Siracusa LD, Snoeck HW, Spearow JL, Svenson K, Tarantino LM, Threadgill D, Toth LA, Valdar W, de Villena FP, Warden C, Whatley S, Williams RW, Wiltshire T, Yi N, Zhang D, Zhang M, Zou F, Complex Trait Consortium. The Collaborative cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits. Nature Genetics. 2004;36:1133-1137.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1104-1133

  18. 18.

    Coyne JA, Orr HA. Speciation. 2004.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Cucchi T, Vigne JD, Auffray JC. First occurrence of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943) in the Western Mediterranean: a zooarchaeological revision of subfossil occurrences. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2005;84:429-445.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00445.x

  20. 20.

    Cuthbert R, Hilton G. Introduced house mice Mus musculus: a significant predator of threatened and endemic birds on Gough Island, South Atlantic Ocean? Biological Conservation. 2004;117:483-489.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.biocon.2003.08.007

  21. 21.

    Dandekar S, Rossitto P, Pickett S, Mockli G, Bradshaw H, Cardiff R, Gardner M. Molecular characterization of the Akvr-1 restriction gene: a defective endogenous retrovirus-borne gene identical to Fv-4r. Journal of Virology. 1987;61:308-314.

    Not in our library10.1128/jvi.61.2.308-314.1987

  22. 22.

    Davis SJ. Morphometric variation of populations of house mice Mus domesticus in Britain and Faroe. Journal of Zoology. 1983;199:521-534.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1469-7998.1983.tb05103.x

  23. 23.

    Dean MD, Ardlie KG, Nachman MW. The frequency of multiple paternity suggests that sperm competition is common in house mice (Mus domesticus). Molecular Ecology. 2006;15:4141-4151.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2006.03068.x

  24. 24.

    Didion J, de Villena FP. Deconstructing Mus gemischus: advances in understanding ancestry, structure, and variation in the genome of the laboratory mouse. Mammalian Genome. 2013;24:1-20.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00335-012-9441-z

  25. 25.

    Dod B, Jermlin LS. Counterselection on sex chromosomes in the Mus musculus European hybrid zone. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 1993;6:529-546.

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1420-9101.1993.6040529.x

  26. 26.

    Dod B, Smadja C, Karn RC, Boursot P. Testing for selection on the androgen-binding protein in the Danish mouse hybrid zone. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2005;84:447-459.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00446.x

  27. 27.

    Duvaux L, Belkhir K, Boulesteix M, Boursot P. Isolation and gene flow: inferring the speciation history of European house mice. Molecular Ecology. 2011;20:5248-5264.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05343.x

  28. 28.

    Firman RC, Simmons LW. The frequency of multiple paternity predicts variation in testes size among island populations of house mice. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2008;21:1524-1533.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01612.x

  29. 29.

    Forejt J, Ivanyi P. Genetic studies on male sterility of hybrids between laboratory and wild mice (Mus musculus L.). Genetical Research. 1974;24:189-206.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0016672300015214

  30. 30.

    Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG. The Mouse in biomedical research. 1981.

    Not in our library

  31. 31.

    Fox JG, Barthold SW, Davisson MT, Newcomer CE, Quimby FW, Smith SL. The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Second Edition. 2007.

    Not in our library

  32. 32.

    Garagna S, Page J, Fernandez-Donoso R, Zuccotti M, Searle JB. The Robertsonian phenomenon in the house mouse: mutation, meiosis and speciation. Chromosoma. 2014;123:529-544.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00412-014-0477-6

  33. 33.

    Gardner MB, Kozak CA, O'Brien SJ. The Lake Casitas wild mouse: evolving genetic resistance to retroviral disease. Trends in Genetics. 1991;7:22-27.

    Not in our library10.1016/0168-9525(91)90017-k

  34. 34.

    Gardner MB, Rasheed S, Pal BK, Estes JD, O'Brien SJ. Akvr-1, a dominant murine leukemia virus restriction gene, is polymorphic in leukemia-prone wild mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 1980;77:531-535.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.77.1.531

  35. 35.

    Geraldes A, Basset P, Gibson B, Smith KL, Harr B, Yu HT, Bulatova N, Ziv Y, Nachman MW. Inferring the history of speciation in house mice from autosomal, X-linked, Y-linked and mitochondrial genes. Molecular Ecology. 2008;17:5349-5363.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2008.04005.x

  36. 36.

    Geraldes A, Basset P, Smith KL, Nachman MW. Higher differentiation among subspecies of the house mouse (Mus musculus) in genomic regions with low recombination. Molecular Ecology. 2011;20:4722-4736.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05285.x

  37. 37.

    Good JM, Dean MD, Nachman MW. A complex genetic basis to X-linked hybrid male sterility between two species of house mice. Genetics. 2008;179:2213-2228.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.085340

  38. 38.

    Gray MM, Wegmann D, Haasl RJ, White MA, Gabriel SI, Searle JB, Cuthbert RJ, Ryan PG, Payseur BA. Demographic history of a recent invasion of house mice on the isolated Island of Gough. Molecular Ecology. 2014;23:1923-1939.

    Not in our library10.1111/mec.12715

  39. 39.

    Gropp A, Winking H, Berry RJ. Robertsonian translocations: cytology, meiosis, segregation patterns, and biological consequences of heterozygosity. Biology of the house mouse. 1981;141-181.

    Not in our library

  40. 40.

    Gropp A, Winking H, Zech L, Müller H. Robertsonian chromosomal variation and identification of metacentric chromosomes in feral mice. Chromosoma. 1972;39:265-288.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00290787

  41. 41.

    Guénet JL, Bonhomme F. Wild mice: an ever-increasing contribution to a popular mammalian model. Trends in Genetics. 2003;19:24-31.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0168-9525(02)00007-0

  42. 42.

    Halligan DL, Kousathanas A, Ness RW, Harr B, Eöry L, Keane TM, Adams DJ, Keightley PD. Contributions of protein-coding and regulatory change to adaptive molecular evolution in murid rodents. PLOS Genetics. 2013;9:e1003995.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1003995

  43. 43.
    Evidence for Pervasive Adaptive Protein Evolution in Wild Mice · 2010
    No notice
  44. 44.

    Hardouin EA, Orth A, Teschke M, Darvish J, Tautz D, Bonhomme F. Eurasian house mouse (Mus musculus L.) differentiation at microsatellite loci identifies the Iranian plateau as a phylogeographic hotspot. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2015;15:26-38.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12862-015-0306-4

  45. 45.

    Harrison DL. The Mammals of Arabia. 1972.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Harrison DL, Bates PJJ. The Mammals of Arabia. 1991.

    Not in our library

  47. 47.

    Hedrick PW. Adaptive introgression in animals: examples and comparison to new mutation and standing variation as sources of adaptive variation. Molecular Ecology. 2013;22:4606-4618.

    Not in our library10.1111/mec.12415

  48. 48.

    Henig RM. The Monk in the Garden. 2000.

    Not in our library

  49. 49.

    Herrmann BG, Bauer H, Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. The mouse t-haplotype: a selfish chromosome – genetics, molecular mechanism, and evolution. Evolution of the house mouse. 2012;297-314.

    Not in our library

  50. 50.

    Herrmann BG, Koschorz B, Wertz K, McLaughlin KJ, Kispert A. A protein kinase encoded by the t complex responder gene causes non-mendelian inheritance. Nature. 1999;402:141-146.

    Not in our library10.1038/45970

  51. 51.

    Hickman M, Cairns J. The centenary of the one-gene one-enzyme hypothesis. Genetics. 2003;163:839-841.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/163.3.839

  52. 52.

    Holdgate MW. The fauna of the Tristan da Cunha Islands. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences. 1965;249:361-402.

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.1965.0015

  53. 53.

    Ideraabdullah FY, de la Casa-Esperón E, Bell TA, Detwiler DA, Magnuson T, Sapienza C, de Villena FP. Genetic and haplotype diversity among wild-derived mouse inbred strains. Genome Research. 2004;14:1880-1887.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.2519704

  54. 54.

    Ikeda H, Laigret F, Martin MA, Repaske R. Characterization of a molecularly cloned retroviral sequence associated with Fv-4 resistance. Journal of Virology. 1985;55:768-777.

    Not in our library10.1128/jvi.55.3.768-777.1985

  55. 55.

    Ikeda H, Sato H, Odaka T. Mapping of the Fv-4 mouse gene controlling resistance to murine leukemia viruses. International Journal of Cancer. 1981;28:237-240.

    Not in our library10.1002/ijc.2910280218

  56. 56.

    Ikeda H, Sugimura H. Fv-4 resistance gene: a truncated endogenous murine leukemia virus with ecotropic interference properties. Journal of Virology. 1989;63:5405-5412.

    Not in our library10.1128/jvi.63.12.5405-5412.1989

  57. 57.

    Ishizuka M, Tanikawa T, Tanaka KD, Heewon M, Okajima F, Sakamoto KQ, Fujita S. Pesticide resistance in wild mammals–mechanisms of anticoagulant resistance in wild rodents. Journal of Toxicological Sciences. 2008;33:283-291.

    Not in our library10.2131/jts.33.283

  58. 58.

    Janoušek V, Wang L, Luzynski K, Dufková P, Vyskočilová MM, Nachman MW, Munclinger P, Macholán M, Piálek J, Tucker PK. Genome-wide architecture of reproductive isolation in a naturally occurring hybrid zone between Mus musculus musculus and M. m. domesticus. Molecular Ecology. 2012;21:3032-3047.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05583

  59. 59.

    Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science. 2012;337:816-821.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1225829

  60. 60.

    Jones EP, Skirnisson K, McGovern TH, Gilbert MTP, Willerslev E, Searle JB. Fellow travellers: a concordance of colonization patterns between mice and men in the North Atlantic region. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 2012;12:35.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2148-12-35

  61. 61.

    Keane TM, Goodstadt L, Danecek P, White MA, Wong K, Yalcin B, Heger A, Agam A, Slater G, Goodson M, Furlotte NA, Eskin E, Nellåker C, Whitley H, Cleak J, Janowitz D, Hernandez-Pliego P, Edwards A, Belgard TG, Oliver PL, McIntyre RE, Bhomra A, Nicod J, Gan X, Yuan W, van der Weyden L, Steward CA, Bala S, Stalker J, Mott R, Durbin R, Jackson IJ, Czechanski A, Guerra-Assunção JA, Donahue LR, Reinholdt LG, Payseur BA, Ponting CP, Birney E, Flint J, Adams DJ. Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation. Nature. 2011;477:289-294.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature10413

  62. 62.

    Keeler CE. The Laboratory Mouse: Its Origins, Heredity and Culture. 1931.

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Kenney-Hunt JP, Vaughn TT, Pletscher LS, Peripato A, Routman E, Cothran K, Durand D, Norgard E, Perel C, Cheverud JM. Quantitative trait loci for body size components in mice. Mammalian Genome. 2006;17:526-537.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00335-005-0160-6

  64. 64.

    Klein J. Histocompatibility (H-2) polymorphism in wild mice. Science. 1970;168:1362-1364.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.168.3937.1362

  65. 65.

    Klein J, Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG. The histocompatibility-2 (H-2) complex. The mouse in biomedical research. 1981;120-158.

    Not in our library

  66. 66.

    Klein J. Natural History of the Major Histocompatability Complex. 1986.

    Not in our library

  67. 67.

    Klein J, Bailey DW. Histocompatibility differences in wild mice; further evidence for the existence of deme structure in natural populations of the house mouse. Genetics. 1971;68:287-297.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/68.2.287

  68. 68.

    König B, Lindholm AK, Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. The complex social environment of female house mice (Mus domesticus). Evolution of the house mouse. 2012;114-134.

    Not in our library

  69. 69.

    Kozak CA, Gromet NJ, Ikeda H, Buckler CE. A unique sequence related to the ecotropic murine leukemia virus is associated with the Fv-4 resistance gene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 1984;81:834-837.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.81.3.834

  70. 70.

    Latham N, Mason G. From house mouse to mouse house, the behavioural biology of free-living Mus musculus and its implications in the laboratory. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2004;86:261-289.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.applanim.2004.02.006

  71. 71.

    Laurie CC, Nickerson DA, Anderson AD, Weir BS, Livingston RJ, Dean MD, Smith KL, Schadt EE, Nachman MW. Linkage disequilibrium in wild mice. PLOS Genetics. 2007;3:e144.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.0030144

  72. 72.

    Le Roux V, Chapuis JL, Frenot Y, Vernon P. Diet of the house mouse (Mus musculus) on Guillou Island, Kerguelen archipelago, Subantarctic. Polar Biology. 2002;25:49-57.

    Not in our library10.1007/s003000100310

  73. 73.

    Liu KJ, Steinberg E, Yozzo A, Song Y, Kohn MH, Nakhleh L. Interspecific introgressive origin of genomic diversity in the house mouse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2015;112:196-201.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1406298111

  74. 74.

    Lynch CB. Clinal variation in cold adaptation in Mus domesticus: verification of predictions from laboratory populations. The American Naturalist. 1992;139:1219-1236.

    Not in our library10.1086/285383

  75. 75.

    Lyon MF. Transmission ratio distortion in mice. Annual Review of Genetics. 2003;37:393-408.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143030

  76. 76.

    Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. Evolution of the house mouse. 2012.

    Not in our library

  77. 77.

    Macholán M, Munclinger P, Šugerková M, Dufková P, Bímová B, Bozíková E, Zima J, Piálek J. Genetic analysis of autosomal and x-linked markers across a mouse hybrid zone. Evolution. 2007;61:746-771.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00065.x

  78. 78.

    Mihola O, Trachtulec Z, Vlcek C, Schimenti JC, Forejt J. A mouse speciation gene encodes a meiotic histone H3 methyltransferase. Science. 2009;323:373-375.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1163601

  79. 79.

    Moro D, Bradshaw SD. Water and sodium requirements of field populations of house mice, Mus domesticus and short tailed mice (Leggadina lakedownensis) on Thevenard Island, in the arid Pilbara region of Western Australia. Journal of Comparative Physiology B, Biochemical, Systemic, and Environmental Physiology. 1999;169:419-428.

    Not in our library10.1007/s003600050238

  80. 80.

    Morse HC, Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG. The laboratory mouse—A historical perspective. The mouse in biomedical research. 1981;1-16.

    Not in our library

  81. 81.

    Morse HC. The Bussey Institute and the early days of mammalian genetics. Immunogenetics. 1985;21:109-116.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00364862

  82. 82.

    Morse HC, Fox JG, Barthold SW, Davisson MT, Newcomer CE, Quimby FW, Smith SL. Building a better mouse: One hundred years of genetics and biology. The mouse in biomedical research second edition. 2007;1-11.

    Not in our library

  83. 83.

    Mutze GJ, Green B, Newgrain K. Water flux and energy use in wild house mice (Mus domesticus) and the impact of seasonal aridity on breeding and population levels. Oecologia. 1991;88:529-538.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00317716

  84. 84.

    O’Brien SJ, Berman EJ, Estes JD, Gardner MB. Murine retroviral restriction genes Fv-4 and Akvr-1 are alleles of a single locus. Journal of Virology. 1983;47:649-651.

    Not in our library10.1128/jvi.47.3.649-651.1983

  85. 85.

    O'Brien SJ. Tears of the Cheetah and Other Tales from the Genetic Frontier. 2003.

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    Odaka T, Ikeda H, Yoshikura H, Moriwaki K, Suzuki S. Fv-4: gene controlling resistance to NB-tropic Friend murine leukemia virus. Distribution in wild mice, introduction into genetic background of BALB/c mice, and mapping of chromosomes. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1981;67:1123-1127.

    Not in our library

  87. 87.

    Oka A, Aoto T, Totsuka Y, Takahashi R, Ueda M, Mita A, Sakurai-Yamatani N, Yamamoto H, Kuriki S, Takagi N, Moriwaki K, Shiroishi T. Disruption of genetic interaction between two autosomal regions and the X chromosome causes reproductive isolation between mouse strains derived from different subspecies. Genetics. 2007;175:185-197.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.106.062976

  88. 88.

    Oka A, Mita A, Sakurai-Yamatani N, Yamamoto H, Takagi N, Takano-Shimizu T, Toshimori K, Moriwaki K, Shiroishi T. Hybrid breakdown caused by substitution of the X chromosome between two mouse subspecies. Genetics. 2004;166:913-924.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.166.2.913

  89. 89.

    Oka A, Shiroishi T, Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. The role of the X chromosome in house mouse speciation. Evolution of the house mouse. 2012;431-454.

    Not in our library

  90. 90.

    Orth A, Adama T, Din W, Bonhomme F. Natural hybridization between two subspecies of the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus and Mus musculus castaneus, near Lake Casitas, California. Genome. 1998;41:104-110.

    Not in our library10.1139/g97-109

  91. 91.

    Parvanov ED, Petkov PM, Paigen K. Prdm9 controls activation of mammalian recombination hotspots. Science. 2010;327:835.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1181495

  92. 92.

    Payseur BA, Krenz JG, Nachman MW. Differential patterns of introgression across the X chromosome in a hybrid zone between two species of house mice. Evolution. 2004;58:2064-2078.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00490.x

  93. 93.

    Pelz HJ, Rost S, Hünerberg M, Fregin A, Heiberg AC, Baert K, MacNicoll AD, Prescott CV, Walker AS, Oldenburg J, Müller CR. The genetic basis of resistance to anticoagulants in rodents. Genetics. 2005;170:1839-1847.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.104.040360

  94. 94.

    Penn DJ, Musolf K, Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. The evolution of MHC diversity in house mice. Evolution of the house mouse. 2012;221-252.

    Not in our library

  95. 95.

    Penn D, Potts WK. MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 1998;265:1299-1306.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.1998.0433

  96. 96.

    Phifer-Rixey M, Bomhoff M, Nachman MW. Genome-wide patterns of differentiation among house mouse subspecies. Genetics. 2014;198:283-297.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.114.166827

  97. 97.

    Phifer-Rixey M, Bonhomme F, Boursot P, Churchill GA, Pialek J, Tucker PK, Nachman MW. Adaptative evoluton and effective population size in wild house mice. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2012;29:2949-2955.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/mss105

  98. 98.

    Pocock MJO, Searle JB, White PCL. Adaptations of animals to commensal habitats, population dynamics of house mice Mus musculus domesticus on farms. Journal of Animal Ecology. 2004;73:878-888.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.0021-8790.2004.00863.x

  99. 99.

    Prager EM, Orrego C, Sage RD. Genetic variation and phylogeography of central asian and other house mice, including a major new mitochondrial lineage in Yemen. Genetics. 1998;150:835-861.

    Not in our library10.1093/genetics/150.2.835

  100. 100.

    Rajabi-Maham H, Orth A, Siahsarvie R, Boursot P, Darvish J, Bonhomme F. The south-eastern house mouse Mus musculus castaneus (Rodentia, Muridae) is a polytypic subspecies. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2012;107:295-306.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.01957.x

  101. 101.

    Renaud S, Hardouin EA, Pisanu B, Chapuis JL. Invasive house mice facing a changing environment on the Sub-Antarctic Guillou Island (Kerguelen Archipelago). Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 2013;26:612-624.

    Not in our library10.1111/jeb.12079

  102. 102.

    Rost S, Fregin A, Ivaskevicius V, Conzelmann E, Hörtnagel K, Pelz HJ, Lappegard K, Seifried E, Scharrer I, Tuddenham EG, Müller CR, Strom TM, Oldenburg J. Mutations in VKORC1 cause warfarin resistance and multiple coagulation factor deficiency type 2. Nature. 2004;427:537-541.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature02214

  103. 103.

    Rost S, Pelz HJ, Menzel S, MacNicoll AD, León V, Song K-J, Jäkel T, Oldenburg J, Müller CR. Novel mutations in the VKORC1 gene of wild rats and mice–a response to 50 years of selection pressure by warfarin? BMC Genetics. 2009;10:4.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2156-10-4

  104. 104.

    Rowe-Rowe DT, Crafford JE. Density, body size, and reproduction of feral house mice on Gough Island. South African Journal of Zoology. 1992;27:1-5.

    Not in our library

  105. 105.

    Russell ES, Morse HC. Origins and history of mouse inbred strains: Contributions of clarence cook little. Origins of inbred mice. 1978;33-44.

    Not in our library

  106. 106.

    Sage RD, Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG. Wild mice. The mouse in biomedical research. 1981;40-90.

    Not in our library

  107. 107.

    Salcedo T, Geraldes A, Nachman MW. Nucleotide variation in wild and inbred mice. Genetics. 2007;177:2277-2291.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.079988

  108. 108.

    Singleton GR, Krebs CJ, Fox JG, Barthold SW, Davisson MT, Newcomer CE, Quimby FW, Smith SL. The secret world of wild mice. The mouse in biomedical research second edition. 2007;25-51.

    Not in our library

  109. 109.

    Song Y, Endepols S, Klemann N, Richter D, Matuschka FR, Shih CH, Nachman MW, Kohn MH. Adaptive introgression of anticoagulant rodent poison resistance by hybridization between old world mice. Current Biology. 2011;21:1296-1301.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.043

  110. 110.
    Genome Patterns of Selection and Introgression of Haplotypes in Natural Populations of the House Mouse (Mus musculus) · 2012
    No notice
  111. 111.

    Storchová R, Gregorová S, Buckiová D, Kyselová V, Divina P, Forejt J. Genetic analysis of X-linked hybrid sterility in the house mouse. Mammalian Genome. 2004;15:515-524.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00335-004-2386-0

  112. 112.

    Teeter KC, Payseur BA, Harris LW, Bakewell MA, Thibodeau LM, O'Brien JE, Krenz JG, Sans-Fuentes MA, Nachman MW, Tucker PK. Genome-wide patterns of gene flow across a house mouse hybrid zone. Genome Research. 2008;18:67-76.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.6757907

  113. 113.

    Teschke M, Büntge A, Tautz D, Macholán M, Baird SJE, Munclinger P, Piálek J. Tracing recent adaptations in natural populations of the house mouse. Evolution of the house mouse. 2012;315-333.

    Not in our library

  114. 114.

    Tucker PK, Sage RD, Warner J, Wilson AC, Eicher EM. Abrupt cline for sex chromosomes in a hybrid zone between two species of mice. Evolution. 1992;46:1146-1163.

    Not in our library10.2307/2409762

  115. 115.

    Tucker PK, Sandstedt SA, Lundrigan BL. Phylogenetic relationships in the subgenus Mus (genus Mus, family Muridae, subfamily Murinae): examining gene trees and species trees: gene and species trees in subgenus Mus. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 2005;84:653-662.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1095-8312.2005.00462.x

  116. 116.

    Turner LM, Harr B. Genome-wide mapping in a house mouse hybrid zone reveals hybrid sterility loci and Dobzhansky-Muller interactions. eLife. 2014;3:e02504.

    Not in our library10.7554/elife.02504

  117. 117.

    Turner LM, White MA, Tautz D, Payseur BA. Genomic networks of hybrid sterility. PLOS Genetics. 2014;10:e1004162.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1004162

  118. 118.

    Valdar W, Solberg LC, Gauguier D, Burnett S, Klenerman P, Cookson WO, Taylor MS, Rawlins JNP, Mott R, Flint J. Genome-wide genetic association of complex traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Nature Genetics. 2006;38:879-887.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng1840

  119. 119.

    Vanlerberghe F, Dod B, Boursot P, Bellis M, Bonhomme F. Absence of Y-chromosome introgression across the hybrid zone between Mus musculus domesticus and Mus musculus musculus. Genetical Research. 1986;48:191-197.

    Not in our library10.1017/s0016672300025003

  120. 120.

    Wang L, Luzynski K, Pool JE, Janoušek V, Dufkova P, Vyskočilová MM, Teeter KC, Nachman MW, Munclinger P, Macholán M, Pialek J, Tucker PK. Measures of linkage disequilibrium among neighbouring SNPs indicate asymmetries across the house mouse hybrid zone. Molecular Ecology. 2011;20:2985-3000.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05148.x

  121. 121.

    Wanless RM, Angel A, Cuthbert RJ, Hilton GM, Ryan PG. Can predation by invasive mice drive seabird extinctions? Biology Letters. 2007;3:241-244.

    Not in our library10.1098/rsbl.2007.0120

  122. 122.

    White MA, Ane C, Dewey CN, Larget BR, Payseur A. Fine-scale phylogenetic discordance across the house mouse genome. PLOS Genetics. 2009;5:e1000729.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1000729

  123. 123.

    White MA, Steffy B, Wiltshire T, Payseur BA. Genetic dissection of a key reproductive barrier between nascent species of house mice. Genetics. 2011;189:289-304.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.111.129171

  124. 124.

    White MA, Stubbings M, Dumont BL, Payseur BA. Genetics and evolution of hybrid male sterility in house mice. Genetics. 2012;191:917-934.

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.112.140251

  125. 125.

    Willison KR, Lyon MF. A UK-centric history of studies on the mouse t-complex. The International Journal of Developmental Biology. 2000;44:57-63.

    Not in our library

  126. 126.

    Yalcin B, Nicod J, Bhomra A, Davidson S, Cleak J, Farinelli L, Østerås M, Whitley A, Yuan W, Gan X, Goodson M, Klenerman P, Satpathy A, Mathis D, Benoist C, Adams DJ, Mott R, Flint J. Commercially available outbred mice for genome-wide association studies. PLOS Genetics. 2010;6:e1001085.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pgen.1001085

  127. 127.

    Yang H, Wang JR, Didion JP, Buus RJ, Bell TA, Welsh CE, Bonhomme F, Yu AH, Nachman MW, Pialek J, Tucker P, Boursot P, McMillan L, Churchill GA, de Villena FP. Subspecific origin and haplotype diversity in the laboratory mouse. Nature Genetics. 2011;43:648-655.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.847

  128. 128.

    Yonekawa H, Moriwaki K, Gotoh O, Miyashita N, Matsushima Y, Shi LM, Cho WS, Zhen XL, Tagashira Y. Hybrid origin of Japanese mice ‘Mus musculus molossinus’: evidence from restriction analysis of mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 1988;5:63-78.

    Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040476

Cited by papers we hold 2

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.