{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013491635186184566, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0016189962223421479, 'mean_word_length': 5.669064748201439, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Postnatal mandible growth in wild and laboratory mice: Differences revealed from bone remodeling patterns and geometric morphometrics

Comparative information on the variation in the temporospatial patterning of mandible growth in wild and laboratory mice during early postnatal ontogeny is scarce but important to understand variation among wild rodent populations. Here, we compare mandible growth between two ontogenetic series from the second to the eighth week of postnatal life, corresponding to two different groups of mice reared under the same conditions: the classical inbred strain C57BL/6J, and Mus musculus domesticus. We characterize the ontogenetic patterns of bone remodeling of the mandibles belonging to these laboratory and wild mice by analyzing bone surface, as well as examine their ontogenetic form changes and bimodular organization using geometric morphometrics. Through ontogeny, the two mouse groups display similar directions of mandible growth, according to the temporospatial distribution of bone remodeling fields. The allometric shape variation of the mandibles of these mice entails the relative enlargement of the ascending ramus. The organization of the mandible into two modules is confirmed in both groups during the last postnatal weeks. However, especially after weaning, the mandibles of wild and laboratory mice differ in the timing and localization of several remodeling fields, in addition to exhibiting different patterns of shape variation and differences in size. The stimulation of dentary bone growth derived from the harder post‐weaning diet might account for some features of postnatal mandible growth common to both groups. Nonetheless, a large component of the postnatal growth of the mouse mandible appears to be driven by the inherent genetic programs, which might explain between‐group differences.