Figure 1.1 Some examples of mouse trinkets.
Figure 1.2 The origin of the house mouse in the context of early human civilizations.
Figure 1.3 Evolutionary relationships among commonly used model organisms.
Figure 1.4 The three fields that come together in modern studies of the mouse.
Figure 2.1 "Evolution of a mouse" by William Stout and Jim Steinmeyer.
Figure 2.2 A phylogenetic tree of the Mus species group.
Figure 2.3 Geographical ranges of subspecies in the M. musculus group.
Figure 3.1 Consequences of inbreeding at the F2 generation.
Figure 3.2 Consequences of inbreeding up to 20 generations.
Figure 3.3 Examples of some commonly used mouse strains.
Figure 3.4 Creation of a congenic strain.
Figure 3.5 Genomic homogeneity and heterogeneity during the creation of a congenic strain.
Figure 3.6 Average length of the differential chromosome segment during the creation of a congenic strain.
Figure 5.1 Normal Mus musculus karyotype.
Figure 5.2 Mouse chromosome idiograms.
Figure 5.3 Chromosome segregation from a reciprocal translocation heterozygote.
Figure 5.4 Hypothetical region from the mouse genome.
Figure 5.5 Unequal crossing over generates gene families.
Figure 5.6 The globin gene superfamily.
Figure 5.7 The Hox gene superfamily.
Figure 5.8 Illustration of genomic imprinting.
Figure 6.1 A genetic strategy for generating sterile stud males.
Figure 7.1 Comparison of chromosomal, linkage, and physical maps.
Figure 7.2 Independent assortment of alleles from unlinked loci.
Figure 7.3 Non-independent assortment of alleles from linked loci.
Figure 7.4 Effects of multiple crossovers on the detection of recombinant chromosomes.
Figure 7.5 The effects of recombination hotspots on the relationship between linkage and physical maps.
Figure 8.1 Piecemeal construction of a linkage map.
Figure 8.2 Demonstration of RFLPs by Southern blot analysis.
Figure 8.3 RFLP generation by different molecular events.
Figure 8.4 Length variation can be generated at tandem repeat loci by unequal pairing and crossing over.
Figure 8.5 Two-dimensional fractionation of restriction fragments.
Figure 8.6 Restriction site polymorphism detection by PCR.
Figure 8.7 PCR-based detection of chromosome rearrangements.
Figure 8.8 Ligase-mediated gene detection.
Figure 8.9 Detection of polymorphic loci with the RAPD technique.
Figure 8.10 Microsatellite alleles and their detection.
Figure 9.1 Illustration of centromere mapping by secondary oocyte analysis.
Figure 9.2 Predicted outcomes for two loci with linkage and no linkage.
Figure 9.3 Punnett square for the two locus F1 X F1 intercross.
Figure 9.4 Construction of a set of RI strains from B6 and DBA progenitors.
Figure 9.5 Maximum number of discordant strains allowable to demonstrate linkage.
Figure 9.6 BXD RI data matrix for chromosome 17 strain distribution patterns.
Figure 9.7 Linkage distance estimates from RI strain discordance values.
Figure 9.8 Interpretation of 100% concordance between two loci mapped on a panel of RI strains.
Figure 9.9 Comparison of linkage maps generated with RI data and backcross data.
Figure 9.10 Determining the likelihood of equivalence for independently mapped loci.
Figure 9.11 Illustration of a backcross mapping protocol.
Figure 9.12 Illustration of an intercross mapping protocol.
Figure 9.13 The swept radius for experimental and framework linkage maps.
Figure 9.14 Example of the coverage of mouse chromosome 2 with marker loci.
Figure 9.15 Haplotype analysis of backcross data.
Figure 9.16 Interpretation of the absence of recombination between two loci in a backcross analysis with 15-100 animals.
Figure 9.17 Interpretation of the absence of recombination between two loci in a backcross analysis with 100-1,000 animals.
Figure 9.18 Idealized distributions for the expression of a quantitative trait in two inbred strains and the F1 hybrid between them.
Figure 9.19 Idealized distributions for the expression of a quantitative trait in N2 backcross populations.
Figure 10.1 Illustration of the genetic steps involved in positional cloning.
Figure D1 No recombination between loci in 50 backcross animals.
Figure D2 One discordance between SDPs for 26 RI strains.