FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 10000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
BMC evolutionary biology2019; 19(1); 188; doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1520-2

Unravelling the hybrid vigor in domestic equids: the effect of hybridization on bone shape variation and covariation.

Abstract: Hybridization has been widely practiced in plant and animal breeding as a means to enhance the quality and fitness of the organisms. In domestic equids, this hybrid vigor takes the form of improved physical and physiological characteristics, notably for strength or endurance. Because the offspring of horse and donkey is generally sterile, this widely recognized vigor is expressed in the first generation (F1). However, in the absence of recombination between the two parental genomes, F1 hybrids can be expected to be phenotypically intermediate between their parents which could potentially restrict the possibilities of an increase in overall fitness. In this study, we examine the morphology of the main limb bones of domestic horses, donkeys and their hybrids to investigate the phenotypic impact of hybridization on the locomotor system. We explore bone shape variation and covariation to gain insights into the morphological and functional expressions of the hybrid vigor commonly described in domestic equids. Our data reveal the occurrence of transgressive effects on several bones in the F1 generation. The patterns of morphological integration further demonstrate that the developmental processes producing covariation are not disrupted by hybridization, contrary to functional ones. These results suggest that an increase in overall fitness could be related to more flexibility in shape change in hybrids, except for the main forelimb long bones of which the morphology is strongly driven by muscle interactions. More broadly, this study illustrates the interest of investigating not only bone shape variation but also underlying processes, in order to contribute to better understanding how developmental and functional mechanisms are affected by hybridization.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2019-10-15 PubMed ID: 31615394PubMed Central: PMC6794909DOI: 10.1186/s12862-019-1520-2Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article
  • Research Support
  • Non-U.S. Gov't

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research investigates the impact of hybridization – the creation of hybrid offspring from horse and donkey parents – on the bone structure and overall fitness of the offspring. It proposes the theory that hybridization may not only result in intermediate physical traits between the two parents, but also introduce new shape variations in the bones, potentially contributing to increased fitness.

Aim and Methodology

  • The main aim of the research was to understand the effects of hybridization on the bone morphology of domestic equids, focusing on the locomotor system.
  • This was done by analyzing the variation in bone shapes and covariation—how the shapes of different bones relate to each other—in horses, donkeys, and their hybrid offspring.

Findings

  • The results showed that hybridization resulted in transgressive effects on several bones in the first generation (F1) hybrids. Transgressive effects refer to the hybrid having traits that exceed the range of variation observed in both parent species.
  • Importantly, the morphology of the forelimb long bones, which is largely influenced by muscle interactions, was not disrupted by these transgressive effects.

Morphological Integration

  • The patterns of morphological integration showed that hybridization does not disrupt the developmental processes that lead to covariation, contradicting to some extent the assumption that hybridization generally disrupts functional mechanisms.
  • This interesting finding suggests that an increase in overall fitness in hybrid equids might be related to greater flexibility in shape changes, a result of undisturbed bone development processes.

Conclusion and Implications

  • The findings suggest that hybridization in equids not only produces intermediate traits but can also introduce flexibility in shape changes that potentially contribute to the overall fitness of the hybrid.
  • This has implications for understanding and advancing animal breeding methods, potentially leading to stronger, more robust hybrid breeds.
  • Furthermore, the study highlights the worth of investigating both bone shape variation and the underlying processes involved, in gaining a better understanding of how hybridization can influence developmental and functional mechanisms.

Cite This Article

APA
(2019). Unravelling the hybrid vigor in domestic equids: the effect of hybridization on bone shape variation and covariation. BMC Evol Biol, 19(1), 188. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-019-1520-2

Publication

BMC evolutionary biology
ISSN: 1471-2148
NlmUniqueID: 100966975
Country: England
Language: English
Volume: 19
Issue: 1
Pages: 188
PII: 188

Researcher Affiliations

MeSH Terms

  • Animals
  • Animals, Domestic / genetics
  • Bone and Bones / anatomy & histology
  • Breeding
  • Horses / genetics
  • Hybrid Vigor / genetics
  • Hybridization, Genetic
  • Least-Squares Analysis
  • Models, Theoretical
  • Principal Component Analysis
  • Sample Size

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

This article includes 79 references
  1. Arnold ML, Bulger MR, Burke JM, Hempel AL, Williams JH. Natural hybridization: how Low can you go and still be important?. Ecology 1999;80:371–381.
    doi: 10.1890/0012-9658(1999)080[0371:NHHLCY]2.0.CO;2google scholar: lookup
  2. Vamosi SM, Hatfield T, Schluter D. A test of ecological selection against young-of-the-year hybrids of sympatric sticklebacks. J Fish Biol 2000;57:109–121.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8649.2000.tb00779.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  3. Gow JL, Peichel CL, Taylor EB. Ecological selection against hybrids in natural populations of sympatric threespine sticklebacks.. J Evol Biol 2007 Nov;20(6):2173-80.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01427.xpubmed: 17887972google scholar: lookup
  4. Burke JM, Carney SE, Arnold ML. HYBRID FITNESS IN THE LOUISIANA IRISES: ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL AND F(1) PERFORMANCE.. Evolution 1998 Feb;52(1):37-43.
    pubmed: 28568157doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1998.tb05136.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  5. Johansen-Morris AD, Latta RG. Fitness consequences of hybridization between ecotypes of Avena barbata: hybrid breakdown, hybrid vigor, and transgressive segregation.. Evolution 2006 Aug;60(8):1585-95.
    doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb00503.xpubmed: 17017059google scholar: lookup
  6. Arnold ML, Martin NH. Hybrid fitness across time and habitats.. Trends Ecol Evol 2010 Sep;25(9):530-6.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.06.005pubmed: 20598770google scholar: lookup
  7. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B. Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1987;18:237–268.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.001321google scholar: lookup
  8. Birchler JA, Yao H, Chudalayandi S. Unraveling the genetic basis of hybrid vigor.. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006 Aug 29;103(35):12957-8.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605627103pmc: PMC1559732pubmed: 16938847google scholar: lookup
  9. Wang H, McArthur ED, Freeman DC. Narrow hybrid zone between two subspecies of big sagebrush (ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA: Asteraceae). IX. Elemental uptake and niche separation.. Am J Bot 1999 Aug;86(8):1099-107.
    doi: 10.2307/2656972pubmed: 10449388google scholar: lookup
  10. Welch ME, Rieseberg LH. Habitat divergence between a homoploid hybrid sunflower species, Helianthus paradoxus (Asteraceae), and its progenitors.. Am J Bot 2002 Mar;89(3):472-8.
    doi: 10.3732/ajb.89.3.472pubmed: 21665644google scholar: lookup
  11. Stelkens RB, Brockhurst MA, Hurst GD, Miller EL, Greig D. The effect of hybrid transgression on environmental tolerance in experimental yeast crosses.. J Evol Biol 2014 Nov;27(11):2507-19.
    doi: 10.1111/jeb.12494pubmed: 25262771google scholar: lookup
  12. Knox RE, Clarke FR, Clarke JM, Fox SL, DePauw RM, Singh AK. Enhancing the identification of genetic loci and transgressive segregants for preharvest sprouting resistance in a durum wheat population. Euphytica 2012;186:193–206.
    doi: 10.1007/s10681-011-0557-0google scholar: lookup
  13. Shivaprasad PV, Dunn RM, Santos BA, Bassett A, Baulcombe DC. Extraordinary transgressive phenotypes of hybrid tomato are influenced by epigenetics and small silencing RNAs.. EMBO J 2012 Jan 18;31(2):257-66.
    doi: 10.1038/emboj.2011.458pmc: PMC3261569pubmed: 22179699google scholar: lookup
  14. Manwell C, Baker CMA. Molecular biology and the origin of species: heterosis, protein polymorphism and animal breeding. London: Sidgwick & Jackson; 1970.
  15. Mingroni MA. The secular rise in IQ: giving heterosis a closer look. Intelligence 2004;32:65–83.
    doi: 10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00058-8google scholar: lookup
  16. Leighton AC. The mule as a cultural invention. Technol Cult 1967;8:45–52.
    doi: 10.2307/3101524google scholar: lookup
  17. Proops L, Burden F, Osthaus B. Mule cognition: a case of hybrid vigour?. Anim Cogn 2009 Jan;12(1):75-84.
    doi: 10.1007/s10071-008-0172-1pubmed: 18636282google scholar: lookup
  18. Castle WE. Size inheritance. Am Nat 1941;75:488–498.
    doi: 10.1086/280988google scholar: lookup
  19. BENIRSCHKE K, LOW RJ, SULLIVAN MM, CARTER RM. CHROMOSOME STUDY OF AN ALLEGED FERTILE MARE MULE.. J Hered 1964 Jan-Feb;55:31-8.
    doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107283pubmed: 14134074google scholar: lookup
  20. Steiner CC, Ryder OA. Characterization of Prdm9 in equids and sterility in mules.. PLoS One 2013;8(4):e61746.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061746pmc: PMC3632555pubmed: 23613924google scholar: lookup
  21. Mallet J. Hybrid speciation.. Nature 2007 Mar 15;446(7133):279-83.
    doi: 10.1038/nature05706pubmed: 17361174google scholar: lookup
  22. Abbott R, Albach D, Ansell S, Arntzen JW, Baird SJ, Bierne N, Boughman J, Brelsford A, Buerkle CA, Buggs R, Butlin RK, Dieckmann U, Eroukhmanoff F, Grill A, Cahan SH, Hermansen JS, Hewitt G, Hudson AG, Jiggins C, Jones J, Keller B, Marczewski T, Mallet J, Martinez-Rodriguez P, Möst M, Mullen S, Nichols R, Nolte AW, Parisod C, Pfennig K, Rice AM, Ritchie MG, Seifert B, Smadja CM, Stelkens R, Szymura JM, Väinölä R, Wolf JB, Zinner D. Hybridization and speciation.. J Evol Biol 2013 Feb;26(2):229-46.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02599.xpubmed: 23323997google scholar: lookup
  23. Lamichhaney S, Han F, Webster MT, Andersson L, Grant BR, Grant PR. Rapid hybrid speciation in Darwin's finches.. Science 2018 Jan 12;359(6372):224-228.
    doi: 10.1126/science.aao4593pubmed: 29170277google scholar: lookup
  24. Savriama Y, Valtonen M, Kammonen JI, Rastas P, Smolander OP, Lyyski A, Häkkinen TJ, Corfe IJ, Gerber S, Salazar-Ciudad I, Paulin L, Holm L, Löytynoja A, Auvinen P, Jernvall J. Bracketing phenogenotypic limits of mammalian hybridization.. R Soc Open Sci 2018 Nov;5(11):180903.
    doi: 10.1098/rsos.180903pmc: PMC6281900pubmed: 30564397google scholar: lookup
  25. Hanot P, Bochaton C. New osteological criteria for the identification of domestic horses, donkeys and their hybrids in archaeological contexts. J Archaeol Sci 2018;94:12–20.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2018.03.012google scholar: lookup
  26. Grant PR, Grant BR. PHENOTYPIC AND GENETIC EFFECTS OF HYBRIDIZATION IN DARWIN'S FINCHES.. Evolution 1994 Apr;48(2):297-316.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1994.tb01313.xpubmed: 28568290google scholar: lookup
  27. Albertson RC, Kocher TD. Genetic architecture sets limits on transgressive segregation in hybrid cichlid fishes.. Evolution 2005 Mar;59(3):686-90.
    doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01027.xpubmed: 15856710google scholar: lookup
  28. Bell MA, Travis MP. Hybridization, transgressive segregation, genetic covariation, and adaptive radiation.. Trends Ecol Evol 2005 Jul;20(7):358-61.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.021pubmed: 16701394google scholar: lookup
  29. Thorpe RS, Leamy L. Morphometric studies in inbred and hybrid House mice (Mus sp.): Multivariate analysis of size and shape. J Zool 1983;199:421–432.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1983.tb05097.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  30. Nolte AW, Sheets HD. Shape based assignment tests suggest transgressive phenotypes in natural sculpin hybrids (Teleostei, Scorpaeniformes, Cottidae).. Front Zool 2005 Jun 29;2:11.
    doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-2-11pmc: PMC1198242pubmed: 15987531google scholar: lookup
  31. Renaud S, Alibert P, Auffray JC. Mandible shape in hybrid mice.. Naturwissenschaften 2009 Sep;96(9):1043-50.
    doi: 10.1007/s00114-009-0563-4pubmed: 19504055google scholar: lookup
  32. Renaud S, Alibert P, Auffray JC. Modularity as a source of new morphological variation in the mandible of hybrid mice.. BMC Evol Biol 2012 Aug 8;12:141.
    doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-12-141pmc: PMC3506452pubmed: 22873779google scholar: lookup
  33. Cheverud JM. PHENOTYPIC, GENETIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRATION IN THE CRANIUM.. Evolution 1982 May;36(3):499-516.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1982.tb05070.xpubmed: 28568050google scholar: lookup
  34. Wagner GP, Altenberg L. PERSPECTIVE: COMPLEX ADAPTATIONS AND THE EVOLUTION OF EVOLVABILITY.. Evolution 1996 Jun;50(3):967-976.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb02339.xpubmed: 28565291google scholar: lookup
  35. Olson EC, Miller RL. A mathematical model applied to a study of the evolution of species. Evolution 1951;5:325–338.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1951.tb02790.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  36. Olson EC, Miller RL. Morphological Integration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1958.
  37. Van Valen L. The Study of Morphological Integration. Evolution 1965;19:347–349.
    doi: 10.2307/2406444google scholar: lookup
  38. Hall BK. Homology and embryonic development. In: Hecht MK, Macintyre RJ, Clegg MT, editors. Evolutionary Biology: Springer US; 1995. p. 1–37.
    doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-1847-1_1google scholar: lookup
  39. Hallgrímsson B, Willmore K, Hall BK. Canalization, developmental stability, and morphological integration in primate limbs.. Am J Phys Anthropol 2002;Suppl 35:131-58.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10182pmc: PMC5217179pubmed: 12653311google scholar: lookup
  40. Young NM, Hallgrímsson B. Serial homology and the evolution of mammalian limb covariation structure.. Evolution 2005 Dec;59(12):2691-704.
    doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb00980.xpubmed: 16526515google scholar: lookup
  41. Lawler RR. Morphological integration and natural selection in the postcranium of wild verreaux's sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi verreauxi).. Am J Phys Anthropol 2008 Jun;136(2):204-13.
    doi: 10.1002/ajpa.20795pubmed: 18322916google scholar: lookup
  42. Rolian C. Integration and Evolvability in primate hands and feet. Evol Biol 2009;36:100–117.
    doi: 10.1007/s11692-009-9049-8google scholar: lookup
  43. Goswami A, Smaers JB, Soligo C, Polly PD. The macroevolutionary consequences of phenotypic integration: from development to deep time.. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2014 Aug 19;369(1649):20130254.
    doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0254pmc: PMC4084539pubmed: 25002699google scholar: lookup
  44. Martín-Serra A, Figueirido B, Pérez-Claros JA, Palmqvist P. Patterns of morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of mammalian carnivores.. Evolution 2015 Feb;69(2):321-40.
    doi: 10.1111/evo.12566pubmed: 25403786google scholar: lookup
  45. Botton-Divet L, Houssaye A, Herrel A, Fabre A-C, Cornette R. Swimmers, Diggers, Climbers and More, a Study of Integration Across the Mustelids’ Locomotor Apparatus (Carnivora: Mustelidae). Evol Biol 2018;45:182–195.
  46. Goodwin HT. Supernumerary teeth in Pleistocene, recent, and hybrid individuals of the Spermophilus richardsonii Complex (Sciuridae). J Mammal 1998;79:1161–1169.
    doi: 10.2307/1383007google scholar: lookup
  47. Ackermann RR, Rogers J, Cheverud JM. Identifying the morphological signatures of hybridization in primate and human evolution.. J Hum Evol 2006 Dec;51(6):632-45.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2006.07.009pubmed: 16962160google scholar: lookup
  48. Hanot P, Guintard C, Lepetz S, Cornette R. Identifying domestic horses, donkeys and hybrids from archaeological deposits: a 3D morphological investigation on skeletons. J Archaeol Sci 2017;78:88–98.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2016.12.002google scholar: lookup
  49. Ryan PG. Morphological heritability in a hybrid bunting complex: Nesospiza at Inaccessible Island. Condor Ornithol Appl 2001;103:429–438.
  50. Cheverud JM, Jacobs SC, Moore AJ. Genetic differences among subspecies of the saddle-back tamarin (Saguinus fuscicollis):evidence from hybrids. Am J Primatol 1993;31:23–39.
    doi: 10.1002/ajp.1350310104google scholar: lookup
  51. Alibert P, Fel-Clair F, Manolakou K, Britton-Davidian J, Auffray JC. DEVELOPMENTAL STABILITY, FITNESS, AND TRAIT SIZE IN LABORATORY HYBRIDS BETWEEN EUROPEAN SUBSPECIES OF THE HOUSE MOUSE.. Evolution 1997 Aug;51(4):1284-1295.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1997.tb03975.xpubmed: 28565477google scholar: lookup
  52. Hanot P, Herrel A, Guintard C, Cornette R. Morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of two domestic taxa: the horse and donkey.. Proc Biol Sci 2017 Oct 11;284(1864).
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1241pmc: PMC5647294pubmed: 28978726google scholar: lookup
  53. Young N. Modularity and integration in the hominoid scapula.. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 2004 May 15;302(3):226-40.
    doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21003pubmed: 15211684google scholar: lookup
  54. Chamero B, Buscalioni ÁD, Marugán-Lobón J. Pectoral girdle and forelimb variation in extant Crocodylia: the coracoid–humerus pair as an evolutionary module. Biol J Linn Soc 2013;108:600–618.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2012.02037.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  55. Goswami A, Polly PD. The influence of modularity on cranial morphological disparity in Carnivora and Primates (Mammalia).. PLoS One 2010 Mar 3;5(3):e9517.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009517pmc: PMC2831076pubmed: 20209089google scholar: lookup
  56. Milne N. Curved bones: An adaptation to habitual loading.. J Theor Biol 2016 Oct 21;407:18-24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.07.019pubmed: 27444401google scholar: lookup
  57. Hanot P, Herrel A, Guintard C, Cornette R. The impact of artificial selection on morphological integration in the appendicular skeleton of domestic horses.. J Anat 2018 Apr;232(4):657-673.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.12772pmc: PMC5835793pubmed: 29315551google scholar: lookup
  58. McGuigan MP, Wilson AM. The effect of gait and digital flexor muscle activation on limb compliance in the forelimb of the horse Equus caballus.. J Exp Biol 2003 Apr;206(Pt 8):1325-36.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.00254pubmed: 12624168google scholar: lookup
  59. Dutto DJ, Hoyt DF, Clayton HM, Cogger EA, Wickler SJ. Moments and power generated by the horse (Equus caballus) hind limb during jumping.. J Exp Biol 2004 Feb;207(Pt 4):667-74.
    doi: 10.1242/jeb.00808pubmed: 14718509google scholar: lookup
  60. Raepsaet G. Land transport, part 2: riding, harnesses, and vehicles. In: The Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012.
  61. Alibert P, Renaud S, Dod B, Bonhomme F, Auffray JC. Fluctuating asymmetry in the Mus musculus hybrid zone: a heterotic effect in disrupted co-adapted genomes.. Proc Biol Sci 1994 Oct 22;258(1351):53-9.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.1994.0141pubmed: 7997458google scholar: lookup
  62. Rohlf FJ, Slice D. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Biol 1990;39:40–59.
  63. Baylac M, Frieß M. Fourier descriptors, Procrustes superimposition, and data dimensionality: an example of cranial shape analysis in modern human populations. In: Slice DE, editor. Modern Morphometrics in physical anthropology. New York: Springer Science & Business Media; 2005. pp. 145–165.
  64. Jolliffe IT. Principal component analysis. Second. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2002.
  65. Krzanowski WJ. Principles of multivariate analysis: a User’s perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1988.
  66. Krzanowski WJ. Cross-validation in principal component analysis. Biometrics 1987;43:575–584.
    doi: 10.2307/2531996google scholar: lookup
  67. Baylac M. Rmorph : a R Geometric and Multivariate Morphometrics Library. 2014.
  68. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for statistical Computing; 2015.
  69. Hervé M. RVAideMemoire: testing and plotting procedures for biostatistics. R Package Version 09–69-3. 2018.
  70. Adams DC, Otárola-Castillo E. Geomorph: an R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods Ecol Evol 2013;4:393–399.
    doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12035google scholar: lookup
  71. Navarro D. lsr: Companion to “Learning Statistics with R.”. R Package Version 05. 2015.
  72. Schlager S. Morpho: calculations and Visualisations related to geometric Morphometrics. 2016.
  73. Schmidt M, Fischer MS. Morphological integration in mammalian limb proportions: dissociation between function and development.. Evolution 2009 Mar;63(3):749-66.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00583.xpubmed: 19087186google scholar: lookup
  74. Gasc JP. Comparative aspects of gait, scaling and mechanics in mammals.. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 2001 Dec;131(1):121-33.
    doi: 10.1016/S1095-6433(01)00457-3pubmed: 11733171google scholar: lookup
  75. Fischer MS, Schilling N, Schmidt M, Haarhaus D, Witte H. Basic limb kinematics of small therian mammals.. J Exp Biol 2002 May;205(Pt 9):1315-38.
    pubmed: 11948208doi: 10.1242/jeb.205.9.1315google scholar: lookup
  76. Rohlf FJ, Corti M. Use of two-block partial least-squares to study covariation in shape.. Syst Biol 2000 Dec;49(4):740-53.
    doi: 10.1080/106351500750049806pubmed: 12116437google scholar: lookup
  77. Bookstein FL, Gunz P, Mitteroecker P, Prossinger H, Schaefer K, Seidler H. Cranial integration in Homo: singular warps analysis of the midsagittal plane in ontogeny and evolution.. J Hum Evol 2003 Feb;44(2):167-87.
    doi: 10.1016/S0047-2484(02)00201-4pubmed: 12662941google scholar: lookup
  78. Adams DC, Collyer ML. On the comparison of the strength of morphological integration across morphometric datasets.. Evolution 2016 Nov;70(11):2623-2631.
    doi: 10.1111/evo.13045pubmed: 27592864google scholar: lookup
  79. Wiley DF, Amenta N, Alcantara DA, Ghosh D, Kil YJ, Delson E. Evolutionary morphing. In: Proceedings of IEEE Visualization 2005. Minneapolis: IEEE; 2005. p. 431–8.

Citations

This article has been cited 10 times.
  1. Nocera I, Sorvillo B, Sgorbini M, Aliboni B, Citi S. Radiographic Appearance of the Fore Digit and Carpal Joint in the Mule Foal from Birth to 3 Months of Age. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jul 26;13(15).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13152417pubmed: 37570226google scholar: lookup
  2. Costes P, Klein E, Delapré A, Houssin C, Nicolas V, Cornette R. Comparative morpho-functional analysis of the humerus and ulna in three Western European moles species of the genus Talpa, including the newly described T. aquitania. J Anat 2023 Feb;242(2):257-276.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13772pubmed: 36156797google scholar: lookup
  3. Parés-Casanova PM, Siddiq AB, Morilla-Gorgot C, Onar V. Lower palatine developmental instability in hybrid Old World camelids. J Adv Vet Anim Res 2020 Dec;7(4):663-668.
    doi: 10.5455/javar.2020.g465pubmed: 33409310google scholar: lookup
  4. Pelletier M, Kotiaho A, Niinimäki S, Salmi AK. Identifying early stages of reindeer domestication in the archaeological record: a 3D morphological investigation on forelimb bones of modern populations from Fennoscandia. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 2020;12(8):169.
    doi: 10.1007/s12520-020-01123-0pubmed: 32704330google scholar: lookup
  5. Mallet C, Billet G, Houssaye A, Cornette R. A first glimpse at the influence of body mass in the morphological integration of the limb long bones: an investigation in modern rhinoceroses. J Anat 2020 Oct;237(4):704-726.
    doi: 10.1111/joa.13232pubmed: 32519813google scholar: lookup
  6. Gao S, Nanaei HA, Wei B, Wang Y, Wang X, Li Z, Dai X, Wang Z, Jiang Y, Shao J. Comparative Transcriptome Profiling Analysis Uncovers Novel Heterosis-Related Candidate Genes Associated with Muscular Endurance in Mules. Animals (Basel) 2020 Jun 4;10(6).
    doi: 10.3390/ani10060980pubmed: 32512843google scholar: lookup
  7. Suthar TK, Zhao Z, Li M, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Sun WS, Zhao Y, Zhang SM. Heterosis-Based Identification of Candidate Genes Associated with Lipid Metabolism and Meat Quality in Crossbred Pigs. Animals (Basel) 2026 Jan 29;16(3).
    doi: 10.3390/ani16030423pubmed: 41681404google scholar: lookup
  8. Ma Y, Liu Y, Li H, Yang K, Yao G. Changes in blood physiological and biochemical parameters and intestinal flora in newborn horses and mares with angular limb deformities. Front Vet Sci 2024;11:1503117.
    doi: 10.3389/fvets.2024.1503117pubmed: 39660173google scholar: lookup
  9. Zhao J, Chen M, Luo Z, Cui P, Ren P, Wang Y. Strand-Specific RNA Sequencing Reveals Gene Expression Patterns in F1 Chick Breast Muscle and Liver after Hatching. Animals (Basel) 2024 Apr 29;14(9).
    doi: 10.3390/ani14091335pubmed: 38731340google scholar: lookup
  10. Sánchez-Guerrero MJ, Ripollés-Lobo M, Bartolomé E, Perdomo-González DI, Valera M. The Relevance of the Expected Value of the Proportion of Arabian Genes in Genetic Evaluations for Eventing Competitions. Animals (Basel) 2023 Jun 13;13(12).
    doi: 10.3390/ani13121973pubmed: 37370483google scholar: lookup
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,911 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.