Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 21, 2026.

Peromyscus mice as a model for studying natural variation

Nicole L Bedford, Hopi E Hoekstra

eLife · 2015 · CC BY

doi:10.7554/elife.06813

Abstract

The deer mouse (genus Peromyscus) is the most abundant mammal in North America, and it occupies almost every type of terrestrial habitat. It is not surprising therefore that the natural history of Peromyscus is among the best studied of any small mammal. For decades, the deer mouse has contributed to our understanding of population genetics, disease ecology, longevity, endocrinology and behavior. Over a century's worth of detailed descriptive studies of Peromyscus in the wild, coupled with emerging genetic and genomic techniques, have now positioned these mice as model organisms for the study of natural variation and adaptation. Recent work, combining field observations and laboratory experiments, has lead to exciting advances in a number of fields—from evolution and genetics, to physiology and neurobiology.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 21, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

Peromyscus is a genus of small North American rodents known colloquially as deer mice. When the first Peromyscus specimens were shipped to European systematicists in the late 18th century, their resemblance to the local wood mouse prompted the designation Mus sylvaticus. At the time, little was known of the diversity of rodents worldwide and most were assigned the generic term Mus. The name Peromyscus was first employed, albeit narrowly, in the middle of the 19th century. Quadrupeds of North America recognized only three species now known to belong to Peromyscus, and Mammals of North America included a mere 12. But by the turn of the 20th century, Peromyscus included 143 forms, 42 of which represented monotypic or good biological species. The genus saw several additional revisions throughout the 20th century as North American mammalogy matured and natural history collections expanded. Today 56 species are recognized, the most widespread and diverse being Peromyscus maniculatus.

Thus, although not immediately appreciated, Peromyscus includes more species than any other North American mammalian genus and, apart from Mus and Rattus, more is known concerning its biology in the laboratory than any other group of small mammals (Figure 1;; ). Several disciplines including ecology, evolution, physiology, reproductive biology and behavioral neuroscience have all employed Peromyscus, inspiring its label as ‘the Drosophila of North American mammalogy’. Arguably, the emergence of Peromyscus as a model system was propelled by our cumulative knowledge of its fascinating and varied natural history.

Distribution and habitat

‘Within the range of one species (maniculatus) it is probable that a line, or several lines, could be drawn from Labrador to Alaska and thence to southern Mexico throughout which not a single square mile is not inhabited by some form of this species’.

Wilfred H Osgood asserted that some form of Peromyscus had been trapped in nearly every patch of North America ever visited by a mammal collector. Members of the genus are distributed from the southern edge of the Canadian Arctic to the Colombian border of Panama (Figure 2). Various demographic and biogeographic factors (e.g., Pleistocene glacial and pluvial cycles, population expansions, mountain range elevations and sea-level changes) have influenced the diversity and distribution of deer mice. The result is a mosaic of widespread and restricted species ranges shaped by both dispersal and vicariance events. Our knowledge of the distributions, home ranges and habitat preferences of deer mice comes primarily from the trapping data and field notes of early natural historians (e.g.,;;, ). Osgood's influential 1909 taxonomic revision was built on examinations of more than 27,000 specimens from diverse locales that were collected primarily by the US Biological Survey. Today, more than 120,000 Peromyscus specimens are accessioned in Natural History museums across North America and the United Kingdom (Table 1). These invaluable collections document more than a century of dynamic relationships between deer mice and their environment. For example, by comparing past and present-day collecting locales, shifts in the distributions of deer mice have been linked to climate change, and morphological analyses of these museum specimens reveal how deer mice respond to changing environments.

Although not strictly commensal, deer mice (particularly in New England) do enter human households and partake of their larders. According to legend, Walt Disney drew inspiration for Mickey Mouse from the ‘tame field mice’ (most likely Peromyscus leucopus) that would wander into his old Kansas City animation studio. Nevertheless, Peromyscus are most commonly trapped in woodlands and brushlands and are also found in tropical and temperate rainforests, grasslands, savannas, swamps, deserts and alpine habitats (Figure 3; ). Local adaptation to these various environments has been the subject of much recent inquiry (e.g.,;; ), and the detailed cataloguing of phenotypic diversity by early naturalists inspired much of this work. However, we still require a more complete understanding of ecological diversity across the entire genus, as well as an enlightened view of phylogenetic relationships informed by whole-genome sequences (see Box 1).

Adaptation to mountains, cities and deserts

Among North American mammals, the deer mouse is unparalleled in its ability to colonize an impressive array of habitats. The remarkable elevational range of one subspecies (P. m. sonoriensis) stretches from below sea level in Death Valley to above 4300 meters in the adjacent White and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. The ability of deer mice to colonize and thrive in low-oxygen environments is due, in part, to standing genetic variation in globin genes. Storz and colleagues pinpointed several amino acid substitutions that confer high hemoglobin-O2 affinity and better aerobic performance at high altitudes. Functional analyses have since identified how precise mutations, and interactions among mutations, affect hemoglobin-O2 affinity, demonstrating that the adaptive value of a given biochemical substitution depends both on the local environment and the genetic background in which it arises.

The process of adapting to urban environments also leaves its mark on the genome. By comparing the brain, liver and gonad transcriptomes of urban and rural populations of P. leucopus, identified several genes associated with metabolism and immune function exhibiting signatures of selection in New York City's parklands. Similarly, identified renal transcripts related to solute and water balance experiencing purifying selection in the desert-adapted species, Peromyscus eremicus. Further study of these candidate genes will determine their role in adaptation to new or extreme environments.

Diet and predators

Generally deer mice are granivores, feeding primarily on seeds, but fruits, fungi, green vegetation and insects have been found among their stomach contents and in the nest cavities of their burrows. However, some species have evolved seasonally specialized diets. In the winter, Peromyscus melanotis prey almost exclusively on monarch butterflies that roost in Mexico's central highlands. Moreover, on a remote island in British Columbia, Peromyscus keeni feast on auklet eggs during the seabird breeding season. Deer mice are themselves common prey, contributing to the diets of many predators such as weasels, skunks, lynx, bobcats, foxes, coyotes, hawks and owls. Indeed, avian predation imposes strong selective pressure for cryptic coloration in Peromyscus—a classic example of local adaptation.

Parasites and disease

The diversity of parasites is documented for only a few Peromyscus species, and very little is known of the ecological factors that influence infection dynamics. Common internal parasites include pentastomid larvae, cestode tapeworms, nematodes and trematodes. External parasites include lice, mites, fleas and ticks, the latter two being vectors of plague and Lyme disease, respectively.

As a natural reservoir for Borrelia burgdorferi—the bacterial agent of Lyme disease—Peromyscus is the subject of much research on the pathogenesis and transmission of the disease. Peromyscus also features in ecological modeling efforts to determine how the diversity of the tick host community impacts disease risk. One hypothesis for the alarming recent expansion of Lyme disease is that habitat fragmentation associated with human development favors deer mouse populations at the expense of other tick hosts (e.g., squirrels and shrews) that are poor reservoirs for the disease. Peromyscus is also a notorious carrier of the Sin Nombre hantavirus, responsible for the deaths of 12 people in the Four Corners area of the southwestern United States in 1993.

Longevity

Mortality in natural populations is incredibly high and driven by a combination of factors including limited food supply, competition for territories and predation. As such, most Peromyscus are thought to live less than a year in the wild. However, early investigators noted substantially longer natural lifespans in their laboratory colonies. With a twofold difference in life expectancy, proposed P. leucopus and Mus musculus as a longevity contrast pair. P. leucopus—which lives up to 8 years and may remain fertile for 5—produces fewer reactive oxygen species, exhibits enhanced antioxidant enzyme activity and less oxidative damage to lipids relative to the short-lived (~3.5 years) laboratory mouse. Measuring the biochemical correlates of longevity in Peromyscus has been integral to providing support for the oxidative stress theory of aging.

Life history

The timing of life history events in Peromyscus—well documented from field and laboratory studies alike—is highly variable both within and among species. Yet studies contrasting the reproductive and developmental patterns of wild and domesticated deer mice have found few significant differences. Here, we highlight life history traits in P. maniculatus, the most commonly used laboratory species. Gestation ranges from 21 to 27 days (average 23.6) and average litter size is 4.6 pups. Juveniles first leave the nest between 14 and 16 days of age and become independent of their mother between 18 and 25 days. Captive females give birth to their first litter, on average, at 84 days, but males are capable of siring offspring several weeks earlier.

The actual timing of sexual maturation in the wild, however, is often dictated by population density, food availability and season. In response to short day length, many species exhibit seasonal gonadal regression, increased aggression, impaired spatial memory and enhanced immune function. As such, Peromyscus has emerged as a model system for the study of photoperiodism (i.e., the ability to seasonally modulate energetic demands by tracking day length changes). Such studies have been particularly fruitful for understanding the mechanistic basis of gene by environment interactions. For example, day length can reverse the behavioral action of the hormone estradiol by determining which estrogen receptor pathway is expressed and consequently activated. While life history traits are strongly affected by environmental cues, substantial genetic variation in the neuroendocrine pathways that control reproductive timing also exists, as demonstrated by selection line experiments with photoperiod responsive and nonresponsive P. leucopus.

Mating system and parental care

While the majority of Peromyscus species are promiscuous, monogamy has independently evolved at least twice in the genus. Both Peromyscus californicus and Peromyscus polionotus are socially and genetically monogamous, and both males and females contribute to the care of offspring. P. californicus, in particular, has become an important neurobiological model for the study of male parental care. As a complement, the ability of monogamous P. polionotus to hybridize with promiscuous P. maniculatus allows geneticists to identify the genetic basis of alternate mating systems and their associated phenotypes, from genomic imprinting to parental investment and reproductive traits (e.g., ).

argues that parental and social behaviors are particularly vulnerable to endocrine disruption, as these traits are dependent upon the organizational and activational effects of androgens and estrogens. Mating system variation between closely related species of deer mice provides an opportunity to test this hypothesis. P. maniculatus males exposed to the endocrine disrupting compound bisphenol A (BPA) during development displayed reduced spatial learning and exploratory behavior—traits known to be associated with male–male competition for mates. However, these behaviors—which are not subject to sexual selection in females—were unaffected in BPA-exposed females. By contrast, sexual selection favors the evolution of mate guarding and territorial behavior in monogamous males, and it is these traits (rather than spatial learning or exploratory behavior) that are compromised by endocrine disruption in P. californicus.

Home building

Behavioral genetics studies have historically been restricted to a handful of genetic model organisms that display behaviors of unclear ecological relevance. Sufficient resources are now available—from a medium-density genetic linkage map to draft genome sequences (Baylor College of Medicine, Peromyscus Genome Project)—that we can attribute natural variation in Peromyscus behavior to specific genetic variants. For instance, P. maniculatus and P. polionotus display considerable differences in stereotyped burrowing behavior. P. maniculatus digs short, simple burrows in contrast to the long, complex burrows constructed by P. polionotus that consist of an entrance tunnel, nest chamber and escape tunnel. Remarkably, mice raised in the laboratory for several generations recapitulate the species-specific burrow architectures observed in nature (Video 1). Furthermore, the complex burrows of P. polionotus are derived and likely evolved through changes at only a handful of genetic loci, each affecting distinct behavioral modules (i.e., entrance tunnel length and escape tunnel presence; ). Next steps include isolating genetic variants, understanding their effects on the neural circuitry underlying burrowing behavior and quantifying the adaptive value of burrowing in the wild.

Pigmentation

Among the several cases of adaptive phenotypic variation in Peromyscus, perhaps the most obvious is coat coloration. Recent advances have identified not only the genes, but also the specific mutations, leading to local variation in coat color. Beach mice (P. polionotus leucocephalus) living on the coastal sand dunes and barrier islands of Florida are considerably paler than their inland counterparts (P. p. subgriseus) that inhabit dark, loamy soils (Figure 4;; ). For beach mice on Florida's Gulf Coast, light coloration is due, in part, to a fixed single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the melanocortin-1 receptor (Mc1r) coding region. However, this Mc1r allele does not contribute to light pelage in Florida's Atlantic coast mice, suggesting that the two populations converged on light coloration independently.

Similarly, background matching in P. maniculatus of the Nebraska Sand Hills affords a strong selective advantage against avian predators. Yet, cryptic coloration is a complex phenotype composed of multiple component traits (i.e., tail stripe, dorsal-ventral boundary, ventral color, dorsal brightness and hue). Linnen and colleagues identified multiple distinct mutations within the Agouti locus, each associated with a different color trait that independently affected fitness. Thus, parallel studies of Peromyscus pigmentation nicely illustrate the marriage between classical natural history studies and modern molecular techniques, thereby providing new insights into the molecular basis of adaptation.

Peromyscus in the laboratory

Francis Sumner, considered the grandfather of Peromyscus biology (see Box 2), first demonstrated the feasibility of the deer mouse as a laboratory organism in the 1910s and 20s. He famously built the first Peromyscus ‘mouse house’ in what is now referred to as Sumner Canyon at the Scripps Institution in La Jolla, California. When his Peromyscus work at Scripps was discontinued, Sumner bequeathed his stocks to Lee R Dice at the University of Michigan who honed the methods for generating and maintaining Peromyscus colonies in the 1930s and 40s. During this time, Dice began to catalogue single factor genetic mutations in his stocks (e.g., gray, dilute, epilepsy). These mice served as the founding strains for the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center (PGSC) established in 1985 by Wallace Dawson at the University of South Carolina, which currently maintains wild-derived stocks of six species, as well as 13 coat-color mutants and four additional mutants on P. maniculatus genetic backgrounds. Additional wild-derived stocks are kept in individual laboratories (Table 2) and still more mutants have been cryopreserved. The PGSC also maintains an extensive online reference library (http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu) with more than 3000 citations.

While the genetic causes and phenotypic consequences differ among strains, Peromyscus colonies are invariably susceptible to inbreeding depression, which necessitates their maintenance as relatively outbred stocks. Thus, although the deer mouse is amenable to laboratory life, its biology has not been purposely altered by generations of inbreeding or artificial selection. Life history traits and even behaviors such as burrow construction or ultrasonic vocalization are generally preserved in laboratory strains. Thus, the traits we scrutinize in the laboratory (e.g., aerobic performance, photoperiodism, mating and parental behavior) are arguably faithful representations of phenotypes in nature. The ability to study genetically diverse, wild-derived mice under controlled laboratory conditions has opened up several constructive research programs centered on understanding the phenotypic consequences of natural genetic variation.

Conclusions

The tradition of dissecting the genetic basis of ecologically relevant traits in the laboratory began in the early 20th century; in Peromyscus, this effort was lead by Francis Sumner and continues today. In an era of high-throughput sequencing and expanding transgenic technologies, our concept of the genetic model organism is rapidly changing. We can now widen our focus to include the diverse and naturally evolving species that may further our understanding of life outside the laboratory. The emergence of Peromyscus as a model system has been largely driven by the wealth of natural history information available for the genus. Indeed, deer mice form the foundation of much of our understanding of the biology of small mammals. The multitude of ecological conditions to which deer mice have adapted has contributed to an impressive array of biological diversity within a single, ubiquitous genus. While this radiation is fascinating in its own right, Peromyscus is arguably foremost among nascent model systems that may aptly model the genetic complexity of the human condition, which too has long been shaped by natural selection in the wild. We hope that the continued development—primarily through the growth of genetic and genomic resources—of this model system will galvanize research in all corners of biology.

References 117

  1. 1.

    Allred DM. Plague important fleas and mammals in Utah and the western United States. The Great Basin Naturalist. 1952;12:67-75.

    Not in our library

  2. 2.

    Arbogast P, Glösmann M, Peichl L. Retinal cone photoreceptors of the deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus: development, topography, opsin expression and spectral tuning. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:1-12.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0080910

  3. 3.

    Audubon JJ, Bachman J. The Quadrupeds of North America. 1854;Volume 3.

    Not in our library

  4. 4.

    Baird SF. Mammals of North America. 1859.

    Not in our library

  5. 5.

    Baker RH, King JA. Habitats and distribution. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1968.

    Not in our library

  6. 6.
    Experimental Infections of the Reservoir Species <named-content content-type="genus-species">Peromyscus leucopus</named-content> with Diverse Strains of <named-content content-type="genus-species">Borrelia burgdorferi</named-content>, a Lyme Disease Agent · 2012
    Not checked
  7. 7.

    Bendell JF. Food as a control of a population of white-footed mice, Peromyscus leucopus noveboracensis (Fischer). Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1959;37:173-209.

    Not in our library10.1139/z59-021

  8. 8.

    Bester-Meredith JK, Young LJ, Marler CA. Species differences in paternal behavior and aggression in Peromyscus and their associations with vasopressin immunoreactivity and receptors. Hormones and Behavior. 1999;36:25-38.

    Not in our library10.1006/hbeh.1999.1522

  9. 9.

    Blair WF. A study of prairie deer-mouse populations in Southern Michigan. American Midland Naturalist. 1940;24:273-305.

    Not in our library10.2307/2420931

  10. 10.

    Blair WF. Inheritance of the white-cheek character in mice of the genus Peromyscus. Contributions from the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology. 1944;25:1-7.

    Not in our library

  11. 11.

    Blair WF. Population structure, social behavior, and environmental relations in a natural population of the beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus leucocephalus). Contributions from the Laboratory of Vertebrate Biology. 1951;48:1-47.

    Not in our library

  12. 12.

    Botten J, Mirowsky K, Kusewitt D, Bharadwaj M, Yee J, Ricci R, Feddersen RM, Hjelle B. Experimental infection model for Sin Nombre hantavirus in the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2000;97:10578-10583.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.180197197

  13. 13.

    Bowen WD. Variation in coyote social organization: the influence of prey size. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1981;59:639-652.

    Not in our library10.1139/z81-094

  14. 14.

    Bradley RD, Rogers DS, Kilpatrick CW. Toward a molecular phylogeny for Peromyscus: evidence from mitochondrial cytochrome-b sequences. Journal of Mammalogy. 2007;88:1146-1159.

    Not in our library10.1644/06-mamm-a-342r.1

  15. 15.

    Brower LP, Horner BE, Marty MA, Moffitt CM, Villa-R B. Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus, P. spicilegus, and Microtus mexicanus) as predators of overwintering Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) in Mexico. Biotropica. 1985;17:89-99.

    Not in our library10.2307/2388500

  16. 16.

    Bunikis J, Tsao J, Luke CJ, Luna MG, Fish D, Barbour AG. Borrelia burgdorferi infection in a natural population of Peromyscus leucopus mice: a longitudinal study in an area where Lyme Borreliosis is highly endemic. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2004;189:1515-1523.

    Not in our library10.1086/382594

  17. 17.

    Burgdorfer W, Barbour AG, Hayes SF, Benach JL, Davis JP. Lyme disease—a tick-borne spirochetosis? Science. 1982;216:1317-1319.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.7043737

  18. 18.

    Dawson WD, Lake CE, Schumpert SS. Inheritance of burrow building in Peromyscus. Behavior Genetics. 1988;18:371-382.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf01260937

  19. 19.

    de Jong TR, Chauke M, Harris BN, Saltzman W. From here to paternity: neural correlates of the onset of paternal behavior in California mice (Peromyscus californicus). Hormones and Behavior. 2009;56:220-231.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.yhbeh.2009.05.001

  20. 20.

    de Jong TR, Measor KR, Chauke M, Harris BN, Saltzman W. Brief pup exposure induces Fos expression in the lateral habenula and serotonergic caudal dorsal raphe nucleus of paternally experienced male California mice (Peromyscus californicus). Neuroscience. 2010;169:1094-1104.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.06.012

  21. 21.

    Dewey MJ, Dawson WD. Deer mice: “the Drosophila of North American Mammalogy”. Genesis. 2001;29:105-109.

    Not in our library10.1002/gene.1011

  22. 22.

    Dice LR. The occurrence of two subspecies of the same species in the same area. Journal of Mammalogy. 1931;12:210-213.

    Not in our library10.2307/1373867

  23. 23.

    Dice LR. Longevity in Peromyscus maniculatus gracilis. Journal of Mammalogy. 1933;14:147-148.

    Not in our library10.2307/1374020

  24. 24.

    Dobzhansky T. Genetics and the Origin of Species. 1937.

    Not in our library

  25. 25.

    Dragoo JW, Lackey JA, Moore KE, Lessa EP, Cook JA, Yates TL. Phylogeography of the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) provides a predictive framework for research on hantaviruses. Journal of General Virology. 2006;87:1997-2003.

    Not in our library10.1099/vir.0.81576-0

  26. 26.

    Drever MC, Blight LK, Hobson KA, Bertram DF. Predation on seabird eggs by Keen's mice (Peromyscus keeni): using stable isotopes to decipher the diet of a terrestrial omnivore on a remote offshore island. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 2000;78:2010-2018.

    Not in our library10.1139/z00-131

  27. 27.

    Emmons E. Report on the Quadrupeds of Massachusetts. 1840.

    Not in our library

  28. 28.

    Fisher HS, Hoekstra HE. Competition drives cooperation among closely related sperm of deer mice. Nature. 2010;463:801-803.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature08736

  29. 29.

    Fitzpatrick MJ, Ben-Shahar Y, Smid HM, Vet LE, Robinson GE, Sokolowski MB. Candidate genes for behavioural ecology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 2005;20:96-104.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.tree.2004.11.017

  30. 30.

    Foltz DW. Genetic evidence for long-term monogamy in a small rodent, Peromyscus polionotus. American Naturalist. 1981;117:665-675.

    Not in our library10.1086/283751

  31. 31.

    Gage KL, Kosoy MY. Natural history of plague: perspectives from more than a century of research. Annual Review of Entomology. 2005;50:505-528.

    Not in our library10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130337

  32. 32.

    Galea LA, Kavaliers M, Ossenkopp KP. Sexually dimorphic spatial learning in meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus and deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus. Journal of Experimental Biology. 1996;199:195-200.

    Not in our library10.1242/jeb.199.1.195

  33. 33.

    Gentry JB, Smith MH. Food habits and burrow associates of Peromyscus polionotus. Journal of Mammalogy. 1968;49:562-565.

    Not in our library10.2307/1378235

  34. 34.

    Gloger CW. Gemeinnütziges Hand-und Hilfsbuch der Naturgeschichte. 1841.

    Not in our library

  35. 35.

    Grieco TM, Rizk OT. Cranial shape varies along an elevation gradient in Gambel's white-footed mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus gambelii) in the Grinnell Resurvey Yosemite transect. Journal of Morphology. 2010;271:897-909.

    Not in our library10.1002/jmor.10839

  36. 36.

    Gubernick DJ, Alberts JR. The biparental care system of the California mouse, Peromyscus californicus. Journal of Comparative Psychology. 1987;101:169-177.

    Not in our library10.1037/0735-7036.101.2.169

  37. 37.

    Haldane JB. The theory of a cline. Journal of Genetics. 1948;48:277-284.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02986626

  38. 38.

    Hall ER. The Mammals of North America. 1981;Volume 2.

    Not in our library

  39. 39.

    Haigh GR. Effects of inbreeding and social factors on the reproduction of young female Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii. Journal of Mammalogy. 1983;64:48-54.

    Not in our library10.2307/1380749

  40. 40.

    Harris SE, Munshi-South J, Obergfell C, O'Neill R. Signatures of rapid evolution in urban and rural transcriptomes of white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) in the New York metropolitan area. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:1-19.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0074938

  41. 41.

    Heideman PD, Bruno TA, Singley JW, Smedley JV. Genetic variation in photoperiodism in Peromyscus leucopus: geographic variation in an alternative life-history strategy. Journal of Mammalogy. 1999;80:1232-1242.

    Not in our library10.2307/1383173

  42. 42.

    Heideman PD, Pittman JT. Microevolution of neuroendocrine mechanisms regulating reproductive timing in Peromyscus leucopus. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2009;49:550-562.

    Not in our library10.1093/icb/icp014

  43. 43.

    Hock RJ, Wiehe WH. Physiological responses of deer mice to various native altitudes. The Physiological Effects of High Altitude. 1964.

    Not in our library

  44. 44.

    Hoekstra HE, Hirschmann RJ, Bundey RA, Insel PA, Crossland JP. A single amino acid mutation contributes to adaptive beach mouse color pattern. Science. 2006;313:101-104.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1126121

  45. 45.

    Hooper ET, King JA. Classification. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1968.

    Not in our library

  46. 46.

    Howell AH. Description of a new species of beach mouse from Florida. Journal of Mammalogy. 1920;1:237-240.

    Not in our library10.2307/1373248

  47. 47.

    Jašarević E, Sieli PT, Twellman EE, Welsh TH, Schachtman TR, Roberts RM, Geary DC, Rosenfeld CS. Disruption of adult expression of sexually selected traits by developmental exposure to bisphenol A. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2011;108:11715-11720.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1107958108

  48. 48.

    Joyner CP, Myrick LC, Crossland JP, Dawson WD. Deer mice as laboratory animals. ILAR Journal. 1998;39:322-330.

    Not in our library10.1093/ilar.39.4.322

  49. 49.

    Kalcounis-Rueppell MC, Petric R, Briggs JR, Carney C, Marshall MM, Willse JT, Rueppell O, Ribble DO, Crossland JP. Differences in ultrasonic vocalizations between wild and laboratory California mice (Peromyscus californicus). PLOS ONE. 2010;5:e9705.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0009705

  50. 50.

    Kalkvik HM, Stout IJ, Doonan TJ, Parkinson CL. Investigating niche and lineage diversification in widely distributed taxa: phylogeography and ecological niche modeling of the Peromyscus maniculatus species group. Ecography. 2012;35:54-64.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.06994.x

  51. 51.

    Kenney-Hunt J, Lewandowski A, Glenn TC, Glenn JL, Tsyusko OV, O'Neill RJ, Brown J, Ramsdell CM, Nguyen Q, Phan T, Shorter KR, Dewey MJ, Szalai G, Vrana PB, Felder MR. A genetic map of Peromyscus with chromosomal assignment of linkage groups (a Peromyscus genetic map). Mammalian Genome. 2014;25:160-179.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00335-014-9500-8

  52. 52.

    King JA. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1968.

    Not in our library

  53. 53.

    Kirkland GL, Layne JN. Advances in the Study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1989.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Lacy RC, Alaks G, Walsh A. Hierarchical analysis of inbreeding depression in Peromyscus polionotus. Evolution. 1996;50:2187-2200.

    Not in our library10.2307/2410690

  55. 55.

    Lee AW, Brown RE. Comparison of medial preoptic, amygdala, and nucleus accumbens lesions on parental behavior in California mice (Peromyscus californicus). Physiology & Behavior. 2007;92:617-628.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.05.008

  56. 56.

    Linnaeus C. Systema Naturae. 1758.

    Not in our library

  57. 57.

    Linnen CR, Poh YP, Peterson BK, Barrett RD, Larson JG, Jensen JD, Hoekstra HE. Adaptive evolution of multiple traits through multiple mutations at a single gene. Science. 2013;339:1312-1316.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1233213

  58. 58.

    LoGiudice K, Duerr ST, Newhouse MJ, Schmidt KA, Killilea ME, Ostfeld RS. Impact of host community composition on Lyme disease risk. Ecology. 2008;89:2841-2849.

    Not in our library10.1890/07-1047.1

  59. 59.

    LoGiudice K, Ostfeld RS, Schmidt KA, Keesing F. The ecology of infectious disease: effects of host diversity and community composition on Lyme disease risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2003;100:567-571.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0233733100

  60. 60.

    López-González C, Correa-Ramírez MM, García-Mendoza DF. Phylogeography of Peromyscus schmidlyi: an endemic of the Sierra Madre Occidental, Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy. 2014;95:254-268.

    Not in our library10.1644/13-mamm-a-166

  61. 61.

    Luttich S, Rusch DH, Meslow EC, Keith LB. Ecology of red-tailed hawk predation in Alberta. Ecology. 1970;51:190-203.

    Not in our library10.2307/1933655

  62. 62.

    MacManes MD, Eisen MB. Characterization of the transcriptome, nucleotide sequence polymorphism, and natural selection in the desert adapted mouse Peromyscus eremicus. PeerJ. 2014;2:e642.

    Not in our library10.7717/peerj.642

  63. 63.

    Millar JS, Kirkland GL, Layne JN. Reproduction and development. Advances in the Study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1989.

    Not in our library

  64. 64.

    Montgomery WI, Kirkland GL, Layne JN. Peromyscus and Apodemus: patterns of similarity in ecological equivalents. Advances in the Study of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1989.

    Not in our library

  65. 65.

    Moritz C, Patton JL, Conroy CJ, Parra JL, White GC, Beissinger SR. Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science. 2008;322:261-264.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1163428

  66. 66.

    Munshi-South J, Kharchenko K. Rapid, pervasive genetic differentiation of urban white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) populations in New York City. Molecular Ecology. 2010;19:4242-4254.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04816.x

  67. 67.

    Munshi-South J, Nagy C. Urban park characteristics, genetic variation, and historical demography of white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) populations in New York City. PeerJ. 2014;2:e310.

    Not in our library10.7717/peerj.310

  68. 68.

    Musser GG, Carleton MD, Wilson DE, Reeder DM. Peromyscus. Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 2005.

    Not in our library

  69. 69.

    Natarajan C, Hoffmann FG, Lanier HC, Wolf CJ, Zachary A, Spangler ML, Weber RE, Fago A, Storz JF. Intraspecific polymorphism, interspecific divergence, and the origins of function-altering mutations in deer mouse hemoglobin. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2015;32:978-997.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msu403

  70. 70.

    Natarajan C, Inoguchi N, Weber RE, Fago A, Moriyama H, Storz JF. Epistasis among adaptive mutations in deer mouse hemoglobin. Science. 2013;340:1324-1327.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1236862

  71. 71.

    Osgood WH. Revision of the mice of the American genus Peromyscus. North American Fauna. 1909;28:1-285.

    Not in our library10.3996/nafa.28.0001

  72. 72.

    Pedersen AB, Antonovics J. Anthelmintic treatment alters the parasite community in a wild mouse host. Biology Letters. 2013;9:20130205.

    Not in our library10.1098/rsbl.2013.0205

  73. 73.

    Pergams OR, Lacy RC. Rapid morphological and genetic change in Chicago-area Peromyscus. Molecular Ecology. 2008;17:450-463.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03517.x

  74. 74.

    Prendergast BJ, Nelson RJ. Spontaneous ‘regression’ of enhanced immune function in a photoperiodic rodent Peromyscus maniculatus. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2001;268:2221-2228.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2001.1784

  75. 75.

    Provine WB. Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. 1986.

    Not in our library

  76. 76.

    Ramamoorthi N, Narasimhan S, Pal U, Bao F, Yang XF, Fish D, Anguita J, Norgard MV, Kantor FS, Anderson JF, Koski RA, Fikrig E. The Lyme disease agent exploits a tick protein to infect the mammalian host. Nature. 2005;436:573-577.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature03812

  77. 77.

    Ribble DO. The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting. Behavioral Ecology & Sociobiology. 1991;29:161-166.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf00166397

  78. 78.

    Riddle BR, Hafner DJ, Alexander LF. Phylogeography and systematics of the Peromyscus eremicus species group and the historical biogeography of North American warm regional deserts. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 2000;17:145-160.

    Not in our library10.1006/mpev.2000.0841

  79. 79.

    Rosenfeld CS. Bisphenol A and phthalate endocrine disruption of parental and social behaviors. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2015;9:1-15.

    Not in our library10.3389/fnins.2015.00057

  80. 80.

    Rowe KC, Rowe KM, Tingley MW, Koo MS, Patton JL, Conroy CJ, Perrine JD, Beissinger SR, Moritz C. Spatially heterogeneous impact of climate change on small mammals of montane California. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2014;282:20141857.

    Not in our library10.1098/rspb.2014.1857

  81. 81.

    Sacher GA, Hart RW. Longevity, aging and comparative cellular and molecular biology of the house mouse, Mus musculus, and the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus. Birth Defects Original Article Series. 1978;14:71-96.

    Not in our library

  82. 82.

    Schwanz LE, Voordouw MJ, Brisson D, Ostfeld RS. Borrelia burgdorferi has minimal impact on the Lyme disease reservoir host Peromyscus leucopus. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases. 2011;11:117-124.

    Not in our library10.1089/vbz.2009.0215

  83. 83.

    Shi Y, Pulliam DA, Liu Y, Hamilton RT, Jernigan AL, Bhattacharya A, Sloane LB, Qi W, Chaudhuri A, Buffenstein R, Ungvari Z, Austad SN, Van Remmen H. Reduced mitochondrial ROS, enhanced antioxidant defense, and distinct age-related changes in oxidative damage in muscles of long-lived Peromyscus leucopus. American Journal of Physiology. Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2013;304:R343-R355.

    Not in our library10.1152/ajpregu.00139.2012

  84. 84.

    Shorter KR, Crossland JP, Webb D, Szalai G, Felder MR, Vrana PB. Peromyscus as a mammalian epigenetic model. Genetics Research International. 2012;179159.

    Not in our library10.1155/2012/179159

  85. 85.

    Smith MH. The evolutionary significance of certain behavioral, physiological, and morphological adaptations of the old-field moue, Peromyscus polionotus. 1966.

    Not in our library

  86. 86.

    Snyder LR. Deer mouse hemoglobins: is there genetic adaptation to high altitude? BioScience. 1981;31:299-304.

    Not in our library10.2307/1308147

  87. 87.

    Sohal RS, Ku HH, Agarwal S. Biochemical correlates of longevity in two closely related rodent species. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 1993;196:7-11.

    Not in our library10.1006/bbrc.1993.2208

  88. 88.
    Adaptive Variation in Beach Mice Produced by Two Interacting Pigmentation Genes · 2007
    Corrected
  89. 89.

    Steppan S, Adkins R, Anderson J. Phylogeny and divergence-date estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents based on multiple nuclear genes. Systematic Biology. 2004;53:533-553.

    Not in our library10.1080/10635150490468701

  90. 90.

    Storz JF. Hemoglobin function and physiological adaptation to hypoxia in high-altitude mammals. Journal of Mammalogy. 2007;88:24-31.

    Not in our library10.1644/06-mamm-s-199r1.1

  91. 91.

    Storz JF, Runck AM, Sabatino SJ, Kelly JK, Ferrand N, Moriyama H, Weber RE, Fago A. Evolutionary and functional insights into the mechanism underlying high-altitude adaptation of deer mouse hemoglobin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2009;106:14450-14455.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0905224106

  92. 92.

    Sullivan J, Markert JA, Kilpatrick CW. Phylogeography and molecular systematics of the Peromyscus aztecus species group (Rodentia: Muridae) inferred using parsimony and likelihood. Systematic Biology. 1997;46:426-440.

    Not in our library10.1093/sysbio/46.3.426

  93. 93.

    Sumner FB. The role of isolation in the formation of a narrowly localized race of deer-mice (Peromyscus). American Naturalist. 1917;51:173-185.

    Not in our library10.1086/279595

  94. 94.

    Sumner FB. Continuous and discontinuous variations and their inheritance in Peromyscus. American Naturalist. 1918;52:177-208.

    Not in our library10.1086/279662

  95. 95.

    Sumner FB. Longevity in Peromyscus. Journal of Mammalogy. 1922;3:79-81.

    Not in our library10.2307/1373298

  96. 96.

    Sumner FB. The analysis of a concrete case of intergradation between two subspecies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 1929;15:110-120.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.15.2.110

  97. 97.

    Sumner FB. Genetic and distributional studies of three sub-species of Peromyscus. Journal of Genetics. 1930;23:275-376.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf03052609

  98. 98.

    Sun Y, Desierto MJ, Ueda Y, Kajigaya S, Chen J, Young NS. Peromyscus leucopus mice: a potential animal model for haematological studies. International Journal of Experimental Pathology. 2014;95:342-350.

    Not in our library10.1111/iep.12091

  99. 99.

    Terman RC, King JA. Population dynamics. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1968.

    Not in our library

  100. 100.

    Trainor BC, Bird IM, Alday NA, Schlinger BA, Marler CA. Variation in aromatase activity in the medial preoptic area and plasma progesterone is associated with the onset of paternal behavior. Neuroendocrinology. 2003;78:36-44.

    Not in our library10.1159/000071704

  101. 101.

    Trainor BC, Lin S, Finy MS, Rowland MR, Nelson RJ. Photoperiod reverses the effects of estrogens on male aggression via genomic and nongenomic pathways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA. 2007;104:9840-9845.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0701819104

  102. 102.

    Trainor BC, Martin LB, Greiwe KM, Kuhlman JR, Nelson RJ. Social and photoperiod effects on reproduction in five species of Peromyscus. General and Comparative Endocrinology. 2006;148:252-259.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ygcen.2006.03.006

  103. 103.

    Turner LM, Young AR, Römpler H, Schöneberg T, Phelps SM, Hoekstra HE. Monogamy evolves through multiple mechanisms: evidence from V1aR in deer mice. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2010;27:1269-1278.

    Not in our library10.1093/molbev/msq013

  104. 104.

    Updike J, Yoe C, Morra-Yoe J. Introduction. The Art of Mickey Mouse. 1991.

    Not in our library

  105. 105.

    Ungvari Z, Krasnikov BF, Csiszar A, Labinskyy N, Mukhopadhyay P, Pacher P, Cooper AJ, Podlutskaya N, Austad SN, Podlutsky A. Testing hypotheses of aging in long-lived mice of the genus Peromyscus: association between longevity and mitochondrial stress resistance, ROS detoxification pathways, and DNA repair efficiency. Age. 2008;30:121-133.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11357-008-9059-y

  106. 106.

    Van Zant JL, Wooten MC. Translocation of Choctawhatchee beach mice (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys): hard lessons learned. Biological Conservation. 2003;112:405-413.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0006-3207(02)00338-5

  107. 107.

    Vestal BM, Coleman WC, Chu PR. Age of first leaving the nest in two species of deer mice (Peromyscus). Journal of Mammalogy. 1980;61:143-146.

    Not in our library10.2307/1379974

  108. 108.

    Vignieri SN, Larson JG, Hoekstra HE. The selective advantage of crypsis in mice. Evolution. 2010;64:2153-2158.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1558-5646.2010.00976.x

  109. 109.

    Vrana PB, Fossella JA, Matteson P, del Rio T, O'Neill MJ, Tilghman SM. Genetic and epigenetic incompatibilities underlie hybrid dysgenesis in Peromyscus. Nature Genetics. 2000;25:120-124.

    Not in our library10.1038/75518

  110. 110.

    Weber JN, Hoekstra HE. The evolution of burrowing behaviour in deer mice (genus Peromyscus). Animal Behaviour. 2009;77:603-609.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.10.031

  111. 111.

    Weber JN, Peterson BK, Hoekstra HE. Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice. Nature. 2013;493:402-405.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11816

  112. 112.

    Whitaker JO, King JA. Parasites. Biology of Peromyscus (Rodentia). 1968.

    Not in our library

  113. 113.

    Williams SA, Jasarevic E, Vandas GM, Warzak DA, Geary DC, Ellersieck MR, Roberts RM, Rosenfeld CS. Effects of developmental bisphenol A exposure on reproductive-related behaviors in California mice (Peromyscus californicus): a monogamous animal model. PLOS ONE. 2013;8:17-19.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0055698

  114. 114.

    Wolff JO. The effects of density, food, and interspecific interference on home range size in Peromyscus leucopus and Peromyscus maniculatus. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 1985;63:2657-2662.

    Not in our library10.1139/z85-397

  115. 115.

    Workman JL, Bowers SL, Nelson RJ. Enrichment and photoperiod interact to affect spatial learning and hippocampal dendritic morphology in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus). European Journal of Neuroscience. 2009;29:161-170.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06570.x

  116. 116.

    Wright S. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics. 1932;1:356-366.

    Not in our library

  117. 117.

    Yang DS, Conroy CJ, Moritz C. Contrasting responses of Peromyscus mice of Yosemite National Park to recent climate change. Global Change Biology. 2011;17:2559-2566.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02394.x

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.