‘‘The literature is filled with statements about the mechanical function of this or that trait, or about the ‘‘superiority’’ of this or that design without a single experiment to back up the claim’’ (Lauder 1996, p. 86). One of the obstacles preventing a more in-depth understanding of the determinants of complex musculoskeletal traits has been a relative paucity of suitable organismal-level models for investigating their genesis. A complex trait, in this sense, is defined as having multiple contributing factors including behavioral, developmental, and environmental inputs, as well as interactions between any of these (Hofmann 2003). This symposium was organized around a central theme—demonstrating the unique capabilities of mouse models in investigating the manifestation of complex traits of the mammalian musculoskeletal system. In comparison to choosing other animals for organismal-level models, selecting a house mouse has several distinct advantages. The small body size and relatively rapid maturation of mice encourages large samples and more cost-effective experimentation relative to most other animal models. A growing number of inbred strains exist (Vogel 2003; Wergedal et al. 2005), each of which essentially eliminates genetic variability from the list of factors contributing to the morphology or behavior in question. This provides an invaluable opportunity to investigate musculoskeletal responses in experimental designs (e.g., differences related to performance criteria) without introducing confounding genetic variability. Perhaps currently undervalued in importance, mice are behaviorally plastic (Crawley et al. 1997), which is a boon for functional morphologists studying masticatory and locomotor adaptations in the musculoskeletal system, or for conducting selection experiments to study evolutionary outcomes (Garland 2003). Continual advances in the field of genomics, particularly in the technology sector, have resulted in a more comprehensive understanding of the mouse genome, including the creation of new laboratory strains (Schughart and Churchill 2007). Relatedly, experimental manipulation of the mouse genome (e.g., knock-outs or transgenics) is an expanding area of research using mouse models (Austin et al. 2004). Thorough documentation of the mouse genome creates the possibility for tracing phenotypic responses (and differences therein) to precise genes through comparisons among inbred strains. This provides a powerful tool for studying evolutionary morphology (Cheverud et al. 1998). Having briefly described why mouse models would be beneficial for functional morphologists, an eclectic series of investigations were assembled into a symposium in order to demonstrate how mouse models are beneficial in practice. The goal was to craft a program that featured a range of musculoskeletal adaptations, including both cranial and postcranial studies. Three of the contributions use a mouse model to address specific form–function relationships between the cranium/mandible and feeding adaptations. Byron et al. (2008) use a myostatin-deficient mouse model to investigate the role of presumed compressive forces (e.g., those generated during mastication) on the morphology of the temporal bone and squamosal suture. While they anticipated that more heavily muscled myostatin-deficient mice should have exhibited expanded temporal bones and more extensive overlap of adjoining cranial bones at the squamosal suture relative to wild-type controls, the opposite was observed. Myostatin-deficient mice exhibit less overlap of adjoining cranial bones at the squamosal suture relative to wild-type mice. Byron et al. suggest implications for interpreting cranial morphology of fossil hominins. Ravosa et al. (2008) also use a
Read full abstract