The genetic basis of neurocranial size and shape across varied lab mouse populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain and skull tissues interact through molecular signalling and mechanical forces during head development, leading to a strong correlation between the neurocranium and the external brain surface. Therefore, when brain tissue is unavailable, neurocranial endocasts are often used to approximate brain size and shape. Evolutionary changes in brain morphology may have resulted in secondary changes to neurocranial morphology, but the developmental and genetic processes underlying this relationship are not well understood. Using automated phenotyping methods, we quantified the genetic basis of endocast variation across large genetically varied populations of laboratory mice in two ways: (1) to determine the contributions of various genetic factors to neurocranial form and (2) to help clarify whether a neurocranial variation is based on genetic variation that primarily impacts bone development or on genetic variation that primarily impacts brain development, leading to secondary changes in bone morphology. Our results indicate that endocast size is highly heritable and is primarily determined by additive genetic factors. In addition, a non-additive inbreeding effect led to founder strains with lower neurocranial size, but relatively large brains compared to skull size; suggesting stronger canalization of brain size and/or a general allometric effect. Within an outbred sample of mice, we identified a locus on mouse chromosome 1 that is significantly associated with variation in several positively correlated endocast size measures. Because the protein-coding genes at this locus have been previously associated with brain development and not with bone development, we propose that genetic variation at this locus leads primarily to variation in brain volume that secondarily leads to changes in neurocranial globularity. We identify a strain-specific missense mutation within Akt3 that is a strong causal candidate for this genetic effect. Whilst it is not appropriate to generalize our hypothesis for this single locus to all other loci that also contribute to the complex trait of neurocranial skull morphology, our results further reveal the genetic basis of neurocranial variation and highlight the importance of the mechanical influence of brain growth in determining skull morphology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".