About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Genetics Research International
Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 179159, 11 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/179159
Review Article

Peromyscus as a Mammalian Epigenetic Model

Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center and Department of Biological Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA

Received 15 August 2011; Revised 10 November 2011; Accepted 2 December 2011

Academic Editor: Vett Lloyd

Copyright © 2012 Kimberly R. Shorter et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Deer mice (Peromyscus) offer an opportunity for studying the effects of natural genetic/epigenetic variation with several advantages over other mammalian models. These advantages include the ability to study natural genetic variation and behaviors not present in other models. Moreover, their life histories in diverse habitats are well studied. Peromyscus resources include genome sequencing in progress, a nascent genetic map, and >90,000 ESTs. Here we review epigenetic studies and relevant areas of research involving Peromyscus models. These include differences in epigenetic control between species and substance effects on behavior. We also present new data on the epigenetic effects of diet on coat-color using a Peromyscus model of agouti overexpression. We suggest that in terms of tying natural genetic variants with environmental effects in producing specific epigenetic effects, Peromyscus models have a great potential.

1. Introduction

1.1. Importance of Epigenetics

Understanding epigenetic effects and their associated gene-environment causes is important in that they are thought to play a large role in human disease susceptibility and etiology. Epigenetic effects are also important in agriculture, evolution, and likely in understanding ecological interactions. Gene-environment interactions are central to the concept of epigenetics, which may be defined as heritable phenotypic changes not mediated by changes in DNA sequence. Research within the last decade has revealed that many classes of genes are subject to epigenetic regulation. Such regulation likely explains much of the lineage/tissue-specific gene expression observed in mammals [1]. For example, several stem cell regulatory loci are regulated in this fashion [2, 3]. Moreover, epigenetic responses to environment, including brief exposures, appear to regulate gene expression involved in many biological processes [47].

These environmental response mechanisms inducing epigenetic change are largely unknown. Environmental sensitivity is illustrated by the epigenetic abnormalities seen in cultured mammalian embryos [810] and influences of maternal diet and behavior on offspring epigenetic marks such as DNA methylation and histone modifications [1113]. Therefore, epigenetic effects might be predicted to vary across organisms with diverse life histories and reproductive strategies.

1.2. Caveats of Mammalian Systems

Surprisingly, there is no widely used mammalian system for studying epigenetic effects in wild-type genomes. Model systems such as rats, dogs, cows, and sheep do not represent natural populations and have been altered by domestication and other human selection [14]. The most widely used biomedical mammalian model systems are the common inbred strains of laboratory mouse (Mus). The common inbred strain genomes differ from wild type in two respects in addition to conscious human selection. First, the complete homozygosity of these strains is not natural. The full scope of changes induced or selected for by inbreeding is not yet known; one that seems highly likely is the presence of highly elongated telomeres in these strains [15] and attenuated behaviors [16].

The final (and perhaps least appreciated) difference of common inbred strain genomes from wild type are the combinations of alleles [1719] and corresponding patterns of variation. That is, the genome-wide combination of alleles (whether homo- or heterozygous) found in these strains does not exist in nature. Moreover, recent studies show that the genetic diversity found in the inbred strains is limited [20]. That is, the genetic architecture of model systems does not resemble humans [21]. An obvious solution that has been proposed is to incorporate more wild-derived/non traditional systems [16, 20].

1.3. Introduction to Peromyscus and the PGSC

The rodent genus Peromyscus, colloquially termed deer- or field-mice, is the largest and most wide-spread group of indigenous North American mammals [22]; the group’s 55+ species are found in every terrestrial ecosystem. Despite superficial resemblances, these animals represent a relatively old divergence (30 to 50 MYA) from both Mus and rats (Rattus) within the muroid rodents [23] (Figure 1(a)). Most of these species are easy to capture and breed well in captivity, facilitating study of natural variants.

fig1
Figure 1: (a) Phylogenetic placement of Peromyscus and approximate divergence times from laboratory mice, rats, and humans. (b) Map showing locales where PGSC stocks’ founders were caught.

The major stocks maintained by the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center (PGSC; http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/) are wild-derived. That is, a number of founder animals were caught at a specific locale over a short time period, and their random-bred descendants are considered a single stock. Among these are three of the few species of mammals which have shown to be monogamous and to exhibit pair bonding (P. californicus, P. polionotus, and P. eremicus). Figure 1(b) depicts the origins of these major stocks. The additional natural variants and mutants housed by the PGSC have typically been bred onto the P. maniculatus bairdii (BW; http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/wild-stock/p_manicu_bw.html) stock genetic background.

The Peromyscus maniculatus species complex is particularly wide-spread and variable across North America (Figure 2). Viable and fertile interspecific hybrids are possible between many populations and species within this group (e.g., P. maniculatus females × P. polionotus males). Due to these factors, the majority of resource development has occurred within this group. These resources include a recently completed genetic map of P. maniculatus (BW stock)/P. polionotus (PO stock; http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/wild-stock/p_polion_po.html), ~90,000 ESTs to date (additional transcriptome data of other organs will follow), and completed sequencing of both the BW and PO genomes. Assembly of these two genomes is in progress. Genome sequencing of two additional species, P. leucopus (also quite widespread in North America, and exceptionally long-lived [22, 2426]) and P. californicus (arguably the best known mammalian monogamy model [2729]) will follow.

179159.fig.002
Figure 2: Peromyscus maniculatus species complex, captive stock origins, and cross results. Ranges are indicated by color, except P. maniculatus, which is shaded. *P. sejugis range includes adjacent P. maniculatus populations which exhibit greater affinities to this species [31, 32]. Ranges of P. keeni, P. maniculatus, P. melanotis, and P. sejugis extend beyond map. LOI: Loss of (genomic) imprinting; X skewing: skewing of X chromosome during inactivation in somatic tissues. Studies from the 1930s–1950s period suggest asymmetries in crosses between other populations/species (i.e., besides PO and BW).

Further, major advances have been made in reproductive manipulation of P. maniculatus [30]. We have greatly increased the number of oocytes/embryos recovered after induced ovulation. Second, we have also optimized conditions for culturing embryos. These advances (1) allow for easier study of early developmental stages, (2) allow a greater chance for success in cryopreservation, and (3) allow embryo manipulation (e.g., transgenics, chimera production).

Here we review epigenetic studies and relevant areas of research involving Peromyscus models as well as presenting new data on the epigenetic effects of diet on coat-color using a Peromyscus model of agouti overexpression.

2. Incompatibility between P. polionotus and P. maniculatus Epigenetic Regulation

2.1. Epigenetics in Mammalian Reproductive Isolation

An emerging theme in mammalian development is the involvement of epigenetic control of key regulatory loci [1, 2, 3336]. The epigenetic modifications at these loci are of the same type as those observed at imprinted loci, retroelements (i.e., to prevent their transcription), the inactive X-chromosome, and in heterochromatin [3739]. Therefore, changes in epigenetic regulation could both alter development and contribute to reproductive isolation.

Reproductive isolation is thought to be driven by sets of interacting loci in which derived allele combinations are deleterious [40]. One approach to studying such variants is to utilize interspecific hybrids, which exhibit dysgenic or maladaptive phenotypes [41]. A number of studies have employed such hybrids to map and identify the causative loci [4245]. However, the few studies in mammals largely involve hybrid sterility [46] and thus offer little information on genes involved in developmental isolating mechanisms. Despite the lack of mapping studies, epigenetic mechanisms have been implicated in mammalian reproductive isolation in several cases, including (a) Gibbon (Nomascus) karyotypic evolution [47], (b) hybrid sterility between the house mouse species Mus musculusM. domesticus [48], (c) retroelement activation in both Wallaby (Macropus) [49], and (d) Mus musculusM. caroli hybrids [50].

The Peromyscus maniculatus species complex of North America offers great potential for such genetic studies [14]. Among the many variable characteristics in this group are the heterochromatic state of some genomic regions [51, 52]. This heterochromatin variation itself indicates epigenetic variation. Interspecific crosses within this group exhibit great variation in offspring viability. The best characterized of these are the asymmetries in crosses between P. maniculatus (particularly P.m. bairdii, the prairie deer mouse; BW stock) and P. polionotus (PO stock) [5356], whose range is significantly more limited (Figure 2). One potential explanation of such asymmetries involves genes subject to the epigenetic phenomenon of genomic imprinting, which is the differential expression of the two parental alleles of a given locus.

2.2. Genomic Imprinting

Demonstration of the epigenetic nonequivalence of mammalian maternal versus paternal genomes [5759] led to the discovery of imprinted loci. Imprinted genes exhibit biased allelic expression dependent on parental origin. That is, some loci are silenced during oogenesis and others during spermatogenesis. Differential allelic DNA methylation of cytosine residues is thought to be the primary epigenetic mark responsible for genomic imprinting [6062]. These discrete differentially methylated regions (DMRs) arise in gametogenesis, where the responsible epigenetic marks must be reset [6365]. DNA methylation at these DMRs survives the global genomic demethylation during embryogenesis [6668] and may have long-range effects on gene expression [69].

2.3. Loss of Imprinting in Peromyscus Hybrids

P. maniculatus females × P. polionotus males (♀bw × ♂po, so denoted to indicate the growth retardation outcome of the cross) produce growth-retarded, but viable and fertile offspring [55, 70, 71]. The ♀bw × ♂po hybrids display few alterations in imprinted gene allelic usage or expression levels [72, 73]. For example, the Igf2r gene shows slight reactivation of the normally silent paternal allele in ♀bw × ♂po extraembryonic tissues. The product of this gene negatively regulates the Insulin-like Growth Factor 2 (Igf2) protein. The growth-retarded hybrids also exhibit lower levels of the imprinted Igf2 transcript in embryonic and placental tissues at some time points [73, 74]. However, normal Igf2 paternal expression is maintained.

In contrast, P. polionotus females × P. maniculatus males (♀PO × ♂BW) produce overgrown but dysmorphic conceptuses. Most ♀PO × ♂BW offspring are dead by mid-gestation; those surviving to later time points display multiple defects [73]. A portion (~10%) of ♀PO × ♂BW conceptuses consist of only extraembryonic tissues, indicating major shifts in cell-fate. Roughly a third of pregnancies have one or more live embryos at this age. Most of these embryos have visible defects that suggest nonviability (e.g., hemorrhaging) [73]. The rare ♀PO × ♂BW litters that reach parturition typically result in maternal death due to inability to pass the hybrid offspring through the birth canal [75].

Our research has shown that many loci lose imprinted status and associated DMR DNA methylation in the ♀PO × ♂BW hybrids [72, 73, 76, 77] (Figure 3). While the extent of ♀PO × ♂BW DNA methylation loss is not known, restriction digests suggest it is not genome-wide. Excluding a Peromyscus-specific prolactin-related placental lactogen, which displays paternal expression [76], we have tested the expression of over twenty known imprinted genes in the hybrids [77]; the majority exhibit hybrid perturbations. In the case of H19 and Igf2, two tightly linked loci are differentially affected. H19 loses imprinting (and exhibits higher expression levels), while neither Igf2 allelic expression nor levels have been affected in the ♀PO × ♂BW hybrids examined [72, 73]. Also pure strain PO and BW embryos exhibit significantly different expression levels of some imprinted genes (Igf2, Grb10) [73].

179159.fig.003
Figure 3: Diagram of effects of hybridization on genomic imprinting. A generic autosomal gene expressed from both parental alleles is shown on top. An imprinted gene expressed from the paternal allele with a methylated DMR on the silenced maternal allele is shown in the middle. The same (normally imprinted) gene losing imprinting and DMR methylation in the ♀PO × ♂BW offspring is shown at the bottom.

Two imprinted loci contribute to the ♀PO × ♂BW overgrowth: Mexl (maternal effect X-linked) and Peal (paternal effect autosomal locus) [78, 79]. The Mexl-Peal interactions do not account for the loss of genomic imprinting or the developmental defects. Rather, these effects are due to the Meil (maternal effect on imprinting locus) locus where the effect is dependent on maternal genotype [80]. Females homozygous for the PO Meil allele produce the severe dysgenesis in their offspring when mated to BW males. The imprinted genes perturbed in the ♀PO × ♂BW cross do not match the patterns displayed by targeted mutations of any of the DNA methyltransferase encoding (Dnmt) loci [80], though those also produce maternal effects [8184].

2.4. Hybrid X Inactivation

Both hybrid types display skewed X-chromosome inactivation in somatic tissues [78]. That is, the PO allele is preferentially silenced. This difference is mediated by the X-chromosome inactivation center. Surprisingly, imprinted X-inactivation, in which the paternally-inherited X is silenced, is maintained in the extraembryonic tissues of both hybrid types. Note that paternal X inactivation is believed to be the default and ancestral state in mammals [85, 86].

Thus it is clear that epigenetic control of individual loci as well as genome-wide epigenetic control differs between P. maniculatus and P. polionotus. We suggest that this may be the case between other species within the P. maniculatus species complex [14].

2.5. Use of Peromyscus in Other Genomic Imprinting/X Chromosome Studies

The frequent polymorphisms between the two species has facilitated the discovery of novel imprinted loci. A screen in the lab of SM Tilghman used a differential display approach on PO, BW, and reciprocal hybrid placental tissues which led to the discovery of imprinting of Dlk1, Gatm, and a Peromyscus-specific placental lactogen encoding gene. [76, 87, 88]. However, many of the putative newly discovered imprinted loci were never vetted.

The phylogenetic placement of Peromyscus (more divergent from lab rats and mice, Figure 1(a)) renders them useful for evolutionary studies. Several studies have shown absence of genomic imprinting at specific loci (Rasgrf1, Sfmbt2) in Peromyscus along with absence of putative regulatory elements, thereby strengthening the mechanistic hypotheses [89, 90].

A recent study utilized animals of the PGSC P. melanophrys (XZ) stock to investigate reports of anomalous sex chromosomes in this species [91]. Using P. maniculatus chromosome paints, they identified a region common to both the X and Y chromosomes, which has translocated to an autosome. This region has some characteristics of the inactive X chromosome (e.g., late-replication) but lacks others such as trimethyl-H3K27 modification [92].

3. Effects of a High-Methyl Donor Diet on the Peromyscus Wide-Band Agouti Phenotype

3.1. The Agouti Avy Allele and Epigenetics

The best studied example of dietary effects on mammalian epigenetics concerns the viable yellow allele of the agouti locus (Avy) in laboratory mice [11, 93]. The Avy allele displays variable misexpression due to the insertion of an intracisternal A particle (IAP) retroviral-like element 5′ of the agouti promoter. Overexpression of agouti results in obesity and cancer susceptibility as well as a yellow coat-color [94, 95]. The latter phenotype differs from that of wild-type mice, whose individual hairs exhibit bands of yellow and brown (as do those of many mammals).

Maternal diets supplemented with additional methyl-donor pathway components (all taken as human dietary supplements) result in Avy offspring with wild-type coloration and adiposity [11, 93]. This rescue occurs in spite of the fact that these animals are genetically identical to unrescued animals. These effects are due to the selective DNA methylation (and hence silencing) of the IAP element promoter. A maternal diet with a greater amount of supplementation resulted in a greater reduction of the abnormal phenotypes.

A nearly identical phenomenon has been documented with a lab mouse variant of the Axin gene. An IAP insertion into an Axin intron resulted in the fused allele (AxinFu) [96]. The IAP element results in a truncated protein, which interferes with the WT product’s role in axial patterning. Thus AxinFu animals have a variable degree of tail-kinking.

A high methyl-donor maternal diet identical to that used in the Avy studies (which of the two diets is not specified) results in lower incidence and less severe tail-kinking. The rescued AxinFu offspring also exhibits greater methylation of the IAP retroelement. Further, the tail appears to be more labile than the liver in terms of DNA methylation at this allele. These findings have particular import if such gestational dietary modification promotes methylation at loci other than these unusual IAP alleles.

3.2. Effects of Diet on the Peromyscus ANb Allele

To test the hypothesis that such a diet may not only affect IAP elements, we utilized the same high methyl-donor chow used in the agouti Avy and AxinFu studies (Table 1). We employed a naturally occurring Peromyscus allele, which overexpresses agouti, termed wide-band agouti (ANb; http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/mutant-stock/wide_band.html) [9799]. We mated standard BW females to homozygous ANb males and analyzed the resulting offspring either fed a normal diet (Harlan 8604 Teklad Rodent Diet; http://www.harlan.com/) or the methyl-donor-enriched diet Harlan Teklad TD.07517 Methyl Diet; the latter is the “MS” diet used in prior methyl-donor diet studies [11, 93]. A comparison between this diet and the standard chow is shown in Table 1. Offspring were fed the same diet postweaning, until sacrificed at ~six months of age (when coat color is mature; note that these animals live >4 years). After being euthanized, the animals were skinned, and tufts of hair were analyzed by light microscopy.

tab1
Table 1

Whereas ANb heterozygous animals are uniformly light in coloration (Figure 4(d)), we observed large variability in the animals whose mothers were fed the methyl-donor diet as soon as weaning (Figures 4(a) and 4(c)). Thus the maternal diet alone can affect the status of a non-IAP-regulated agouti locus.

fig4
Figure 4: (a, b) Heterozygous wide-band Agouti (ANb) litters exposed to methyl-donor diet; note variation. (c) Individual from litter shown in (a, b). (d) Age-matched heterozygous ANb animal exposed only to standard rodent chow. All animals shown within 4 days post weaning (24–28 days postnatal). All animals used in laboratory studies presented were bred or derived from stocks kept at the Peromyscus Genetic Stock Center. Most species (including all those discussed below) may be kept in standard mouse cages. Peromyscus are kept on a 16 : 8 light/dark cycle (rather than a 12 : 12 cycle) to facilitate breeding. All experiments presented were approved by the University of South Carolina Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC).

Analysis of the coats of other animals at six months of age (maintained on the diet) confirmed this variation in animals exposed to the methyl-donor-enriched diet. Some animals had a yellow hair band of only 2-3 mm, whereas this band extended to 5-6 mm in other animals. This length corresponds to the overall appearance of the coat (i.e., the longer the band, the lighter the coat, Figure 5). Future studies will examine the DNA methylation status of the agouti gene and other loci in these animals as well as potential behavioral effects.

fig5
Figure 5: Pelts and hair clumps from selected heterozygous wide-band Agouti (ANb) raised on the methyl-donor diet. (a) Pelts from animals exhibiting differential coat-colors. (b) Microscopy of dorsal hair clumps from same animals (and same order) as in (a). Note the longer yellow band in the rightmost sample.

4. Toxicology and Epigenetics

4.1. Peromyscus as a Toxicology Model

Due to their ubiquity, Peromyscus are found in most North American contaminated (e.g., due to mining or manufacturing) sites, even where other animals are absent [100102]. Comparison of PGSC animals exposed to these compounds is a fruitful way to study the physiological consequences of xenobiotic exposure. One unexplored research avenue is whether animals at sites contaminated with heavy metals exhibit epigenetic changes, as cadmium and nickel (among others) have been shown to induce such change [103106].

Stock Center animals have been employed for studies involving PCBs [107112], 4,4′-DDE [113], Aroclor 1254 [114, 115], 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene [116], ammonium perchlorate [117], and RDX [118120]. One of the PGSC stocks has a natural deletion of the alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) gene [121], which has proven useful for delimiting the relative roles of ADH and microsomal oxidases in ethanol metabolism [122] and the metabolic basis of ethanol-induced hepatic and pancreatic injury [123]. Ethanol and its metabolites have also been associated with changes in epigenetic marks [124, 125].

4.2. BPA Peromyscus Studies

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used in the production of poly-carbonate plastic and epoxy resins. BPA is commonly used in products including food and beverage containers, baby bottles and dental composites; it is present in 93% of human urine samples in the United States and is a known endocrine disruptor [126]. Dolinoy and colleagues found that prenatal exposure to BPA through maternal dietary supplementation (50 mg/kg) produced significantly decreased methylation of nine sites of the Avy locus, as well as at the CDK5 activator-binding protein locus [127]. Coat color distribution was shifted towards the yellow coat color phenotype.

A 2011 study demonstrated behavioral disruptions in BW animals by bisphenol A (BPA). BPA altered certain behaviors in male offspring of mothers administered BPA during pregnancy. Specifically, these males had decreased spatial navigational ability and exploratory behavior, traits necessary for finding a mate. Females also preferred non-BPA exposed males, despite the lack of detectable physical effects on the BPA-exposed males [128]. This study, therefore, has broad implications for the effects of these compounds on mammals.

5. Additional Areas of Peromyscus Epigenetic Study

There are several additional areas of research where Peromyscus models appear to have potential.

As noted, P. leucopus is a model for ageing, as they live >8 years, ~3-4 times longer than other rodents of comparable size. That longevity is associated with increased vascular resistance to high glucose-induced oxidative stress and inflammatory gene expression [25] and a relatively slower rate of loss of DNA methylation [26].

P. maniculatus has a propensity to perform repetitive movements, for example, jumping, whirling, and back flipping [129]. Such behaviors are not only representative of a number of human disorders [130] but also an issue in captive animal welfare. Thus the PGSC BW stock of P. maniculatus has become recognized as a model for stereotypy [131]. Attenuation of stereotypy was seen after environmental enrichment [132], suggesting a potential epigenetic effect.

Further, BW populations can be grouped into high and low stereotypic behavior groups, with high and low doses of fluoxetine reducing the phenotype in both groups [133]. The two stereotypy levels found in the BW population make them a model for basic research on brain function during repetitive motion and also provide a model for gene-environment epimutation analysis.

6. Conclusions

The interplay between environment and genotype that results in specific epigenetic changes appears complex. Peromyscus offers the opportunity to study natural genetic variants in both laboratory and natural settings and the ability to examine mechanistic and evolutionary aspects of changes in epigenetic control. We suggest that in terms of natural genetic variation and associated epigenetic effects, Peromyscus models have a potential not yet realized with any mammalian system. We encourage anyone interested in the possibility of using these animals in their research program to contact the PGSC (http://stkctr.biol.sc.edu/).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Frances Lee for photography assistance and all those working in the PGSC for discussions. They acknowledge the two major grants that fund the PGSC: NSF Grant no. MCB-0517754 and NIH Grant no. P40 RR014279.

References

  1. F. Song, J. F. Smith, M. T. Kimura et al., “Association of tissue-specific differentially methylated regions (TDMs) with differential gene expression,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 102, no. 9, pp. 3336–3341, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. W. Reik, “Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development,” Nature, vol. 447, no. 7143, pp. 425–432, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. J. Y. Li, M. T. Pu, R. Hirasawa et al., “Synergistic function of DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b in the methylation of Oct4 and Nanog,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 27, no. 24, pp. 8748–8759, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. P. Curley, C. L. Jensen, R. Mashoodh, and F. A. Champagne, “Social influences on neurobiology and behavior: epigenetic effects during development,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 352–371, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. B. R. Carone, L. Fauquier, N. Habib et al., “Paternally induced transgenerational environmental reprogramming of metabolic gene expression in mammals,” Cell, vol. 143, no. 7, pp. 1084–1096, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. D. M. Dietz, Q. Laplant, E. L. Watts et al., “Paternal transmission of stress-induced pathologies,” Biological Psychiatry, vol. 70, no. 5, pp. 408–414, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  7. M. J. Meaney, “Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene X environment interactions,” Child Development, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 41–79, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. R. DeBaun, E. L. Niemitz, and A. P. Feinberg, “Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of LIT1 and H19,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 156–160, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. S. L. Thompson, G. Konfortova, R. I. Gregory, W. Reik, W. Dean, and R. Feil, “Environmental effects on genomic imprinting in mammals,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 120, no. 1–3, pp. 143–150, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. M. R. W. Mann, S. S. Lee, A. S. Doherty et al., “Selective loss of imprinting in the placenta following preimplantation development in culture,” Development, vol. 131, no. 15, pp. 3727–3735, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. G. L. Wolff, R. L. Kodell, S. R. Moore, and C. A. Cooney, “Maternal epigenetics and methyl supplements affect agouti gene expression in A(vy)/a mice,” FASEB Journal, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 949–957, 1998. View at Scopus
  12. R. A. Waterland and R. L. Jirtle, “Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation,” Molecular and Cellular Biology, vol. 23, no. 15, pp. 5293–5300, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. I. C. G. Weaver, N. Cervoni, F. A. Champagne et al., “Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior,” Nature Neuroscience, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 847–854, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. P. B. Vrana, “Genomic imprinting as a mechanism of reproductive isolation in mammals,” Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 5–23, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. E. L. Manning, J. Crossland, M. J. Dewey, and G. Van Zant, “Influences of inbreeding and genetics on telomere length in mice,” Mammalian Genome, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 234–238, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. L. Smale, P. D. Heideman, and J. A. French, “Behavioral neuroendocrinology in nontraditional species of mammals: things the “knockout” mouse CAN'T tell us,” Hormones and Behavior, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 474–483, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. F. Y. Ideraabdullah, E. de la Casa-Esperón, T. A. Bell et al., “Genetic and haplotype diversity among wild-derived mouse inbred strains,” Genome Research, vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1880–1887, 2004. View at Scopus
  18. J. A. Beck, S. Lloyd, M. Hafezparast et al., “Genealogies of mouse inbred strains,” Nature Genetics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 23–25, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. L. M. Silver, Mouse Genetics:Concepts and Applications, Oxford University Press, 1995.
  20. H. Yang, J. R. Wang, J. P. Didion et al., “Subspecific origin and haplotype diversity in the laboratory mouse,” Nature Genetics, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 648–655, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  21. T. J. Aitman, C. Boone, G. A. Churchill, M. O. Hengartner, T. F. C. MacKay, and D. L. Stemple, “The future of model organisms in human disease research,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 575–582, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  22. M. J. Dewey and W. D. Dawson, “Deer mice: “The Drosophila of North American mammalogy”,” Genesis, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 105–109, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. S. J. Steppan, R. M. Adkins, and J. Anderson, “Phylogeny and divergence-date estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents based on multiple nuclear genes,” Systematic Biology, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 533–553, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. O. R. W. Pergams and R. C. Lacy, “Rapid morphological and genetic change in Chicago-area Peromyscus,” Molecular Ecology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 450–463, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. N. Labinskyy, P. Mukhopadhyay, J. Toth et al., “Longevity is associated with increased vascular resistance to high glucose-induced oxidative stress and inflammatory gene expression in Peromyscus leucopus,” American Journal of Physiology, vol. 296, no. 4, pp. H946–H954, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. V. L. Wilson, R. A. Smith, S. Ma, and R. G. Cutler, “Genomic 5-methyldeoxycytidine decreases with age,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 262, no. 21, pp. 9948–9951, 1987. View at Scopus
  27. D. O. Ribble, “The monogamous mating system of Peromyscus californicus as revealed by DNA fingerprinting,” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 161–166, 1991. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. B. C. Trainor, M. C. Pride, R. V. Landeros et al., “Sex differences in social interaction behavior following social defeat stress in the monogamous California mouse (Peromyscus californicus),” PLoS ONE, vol. 6, no. 2, article e17405, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  29. L. B. Martin, E. R. Glasper, R. J. Nelson, and A. C. DeVries, “Prolonged separation delays wound healing in monogamous California mice, Peromyscus californicus, but not in polygynous white-footed mice, P. leucopus,” Physiology and Behavior, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 837–841, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. M. Veres, A. R. Duselis, A. Graft et al., “The biology and methodology of assisted reproduction in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus),” Theriogenology, vol. 77, pp. 311–319, 2012.
  31. S. E. Chirhart, R. L. Honeycutt, and I. F. Greenbaum, “Microsatellite variation and evolution in the Peromyscus maniculatus species group,” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 408–415, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. L. Walker, S. E. Chirhart, A. F. Moore, R. L. Honeycutt, and I. F. Greenbaum, “Genealogical concordance and the specific status of Peromyscus sejugis,” Journal of Heredity, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 340–345, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. B. Wen, H. Wu, Y. Shinkai, R. A. Irizarry, and A. P. Feinberg, “Large histone H3 lysine 9 dimethylated chromatin blocks distinguish differentiated from embryonic stem cells,” Nature Genetics, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 246–250, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. Roper and M. Hemberger, “Defining pathways that enforce cell lineage specification in early development and stem cells,” Cell Cycle, vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 1515–1525, 2009. View at Scopus
  35. R. Feil, “Epigenetic asymmetry in the zygote and mammalian development,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, vol. 53, no. 2-3, pp. 191–201, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. N. Soshnikova and D. Duboule, “Epigenetic temporal control of mouse hox genes in vivo,” Science, vol. 324, no. 5932, pp. 1321–1323, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. B. Wen, H. Wu, H. Bjornsson, R. D. Green, R. Irizarry, and A. P. Feinberg, “Overlapping euchromatin/heterochromatin-associated marks are enriched in imprinted gene regions and predict allele-specific modification,” Genome Research, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 1806–1813, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. M. F. Lyon, “X-chromosome inactivation: a repeat hypothesis,” Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics, vol. 80, no. 1–4, pp. 133–137, 1998. View at Scopus
  39. I. Stancheva, “Caught in conspiracy: cooperation between DNA methylation and histone H3K9 methylation in the establishment and maintenance of heterochromatin,” Biochemistry and Cell Biology, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 385–395, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. H. Muller, “Isolating mechanisms, evolution and temperature,” Biological Symposia, vol. 6, pp. 71–125, 1942.
  41. D. C. Presgraves, “Speciation genetics: epistasis, conflict and the origin of species,” Current Biology, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. R125–R127, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. N. J. Brideau, H. A. Flores, J. Wang, S. Maheshwari, X. Wang, and D. A. Barbash, “Two Dobzhansky-Muller genes interact to cause hybrid lethality in Drosophila,” Science, vol. 314, no. 5803, pp. 1292–1295, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. J. A. Zeh and D. W. Zeh, “Viviparity-driven conflict: more to speciation than meets the fly,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 1133, pp. 126–148, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. S. Tang and D. C. Presgraves, “Evolution of the Drosophila nuclear pore complex results in multiple hybrid incompatibilities,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5915, pp. 779–782, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  45. C. T. Ting, S. C. Tsaur, M. L. Wu, and C. I. Wu, “A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene,” Science, vol. 282, no. 5393, pp. 1501–1504, 1998. View at Scopus
  46. J. M. Good, M. D. Dean, and M. W. Nachman, “A complex genetic basis to X-linked hybrid male sterility between two species of house mice,” Genetics, vol. 179, no. 4, pp. 2213–2228, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. L. Carbone, R. A. Harris, G. M. Vessere et al., “Evolutionary breakpoints in the gibbon suggest association between cytosine methylation and karyotype evolution,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 5, no. 6, Article ID e1000538, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. O. Mihola, Z. Trachtulec, C. Vlcek, J. C. Schimenti, and J. Forejt, “A mouse speciation gene encodes a meiotic histone H3 methyltransferase,” Science, vol. 323, no. 5912, pp. 373–375, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. R. J. Waugh O'Neill, M. J. O'Neill, and J. A. Marshall Graves, “Undermethylation associated with retroelement activation and chromosome remodelling in an interspecific mammalian hybrid,” Nature, vol. 393, no. 6680, pp. 68–72, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. J. D. Brown, D. Golden, and R. J. O'Neill, “Methylation perturbations in retroelements within the genome of a Mus interspecific hybrid correlate with double minute chromosome formation,” Genomics, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 267–273, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  51. D. W. Hale and I. F. Greenbaum, “Chromosomal pairing in deer mice heterozygous for the presence of heterochromatic short arms,” Genome, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 44–47, 1988. View at Scopus
  52. S. M. Myers Unice, D. W. Hale, and I. F. Greenbaum, “Karyotypic variation in populations of deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) from eastern Canada and the northeastern United States,” Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 584–588, 1998. View at Scopus
  53. L. R. Dice, “Fertility relationships between some of the species and subspecies of mice in the genus peromyscus,” Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 14, pp. 298–305, 1933.
  54. M. L. Watson, “Hybridization experiments between Peromyscus polionotus and Peromyscus maniculatus,” Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 23, pp. 315–316, 1942.
  55. W. D. Dawson, “Fertility and size inheritance in a Peromyscus species cross,” Evolution, vol. 19, pp. 44–55, 1965.
  56. W. D. Dawson, M. N. Sagedy, L. En-Yu, D. H. Kass, and J. P. Crossland, “Growth regulation in Peromyscus species hybrids—a test for mitochondrial nuclear genomic interaction,” Growth, Development and Aging, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 121–134, 1993. View at Scopus
  57. J. McGrath and D. Solter, “Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes,” Cell, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 179–183, 1984. View at Scopus
  58. M. A. H. Surani, S. C. Barton, and M. L. Norris, “Nuclear transplantation in the mouse: heritable differences between parental genomes after activation of the embryonic genome,” Cell, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 127–136, 1986. View at Scopus
  59. M. A. H. Surani and S. C. Barton, “Development of gynogenetic eggs in the mouse: implications for parthenogenetic embryos,” Science, vol. 222, no. 4627, pp. 1034–1036, 1983. View at Scopus
  60. E. Li, C. Beard, and R. Jaenisch, “Role for DNA methylation in genomic imprinting,” Nature, vol. 366, no. 6453, pp. 362–365, 1993. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. T. L. Davis, G. J. Yang, J. R. McCarrey, and M. S. Bartolomei, “The H19 methylation imprint is erased and re-established differentially on the parental alleles during male germ cell development,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 9, no. 19, pp. 2885–2894, 2000. View at Scopus
  62. K. Pfeifer, “Mechanisms of genomic imprinting,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 777–787, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. K. L. Tucker, C. Beard, J. Dausman et al., “Germ-line passage is required for establishment of methylation and expression patterns of imprinted but not of nonimprinted genes,” Genes and Development, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 1008–1020, 1996. View at Scopus
  64. J. P. Sanford, H. J. Clark, V. M. Chapman, and J. Rossant, “Differences in DNA methylation during oogenesis and spermatogenesis and their persistence during early embryogenesis in the mouse,” Genes & Development, vol. 1, no. 10, pp. 1039–1046, 1987. View at Scopus
  65. F. Santos, B. Hendrich, W. Reik, and W. Dean, “Dynamic reprogramming of DNA methylation in the early mouse embryo,” Developmental Biology, vol. 241, no. 1, pp. 172–182, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  66. J. R. Mann, P. E. Szabó, M. R. Reed, and J. Singer-Sam, “Methylated DNA sequences in genomic imprinting,” Critical Reviews in Eukaryotic Gene Expression, vol. 10, no. 3-4, pp. 241–257, 2000. View at Scopus
  67. W. Reik, W. Dean, and J. Walter, “Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development,” Science, vol. 293, no. 5532, pp. 1089–1093, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. A. C. Ferguson-Smith and M. A. Surani, “Imprinting and the epigenetic asymmetry between parental genomes,” Science, vol. 293, no. 5532, pp. 1086–1089, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  69. M. A. Cleary, C. D. Van Raamsdonk, J. Levorse, B. Zheng, A. Bradley, and S. M. Tilghman, “Disruption of an imprinted gene cluster by a targeted chromosomal translocation in mice,” Nature Genetics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 78–82, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. J. F. Rogers and W. D. Dawson, “Foetal and placental size in a Peromyscus species cross,” Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 255–262, 1970. View at Scopus
  71. H. H. Luu, L. Zhou, R. C. Haydon et al., “Increased expression of S100A6 is associated with decreased metastasis and inhibition of cell migration and anchorage independent growth in human osteosarcoma,” Cancer Letters, vol. 229, no. 1, pp. 135–148, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. P. B. Vrana, X. J. Guan, R. S. Ingram, and S. M. Tilghman, “Genomic imprinting is disrupted in interspecific Peromyscus hybrids,” Nature Genetics, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 362–365, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. A. R. Duselis and P. B. Vrana, “Assessment and disease comparisons of hybrid developmental defects,” Human Molecular Genetics, vol. 16, no. 7, pp. 808–819, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. S. T. Kim, S. K. Lee, and M. C. Gye, “The expression of Cdk inhibitors p27kip1 and p57kip2 in mouse placenta and human choriocarcinoma JEG-3 cells,” Placenta, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 73–80, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  75. M. B. Maddock and M. C. Chang, “Reproductive failure and maternal-fetal relationship in a Peromyscus species cross,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, vol. 209, no. 3, pp. 417–426, 1979. View at Scopus
  76. P. B. Vrana, P. G. Matteson, J. V. Schmidt et al., “Genomic imprinting of a placental lactogen gene in Peromyscus,” Development Genes and Evolution, vol. 211, no. 11, pp. 523–532, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. C. D. Wiley, H. H. Matundan, A. R. Duselis, A. T. Isaacs, and P. B. Vrana, “Patterns of hybrid loss of imprinting reveal tissue- and cluster-specific regulation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 3, no. 10, Article ID e3572, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. P. B. Vrana, J. A. Fossella, P. Matteson, T. Del Rio, M. J. O'Neill, and S. M. Tilghman, “Genetic and epigenetic incompatibilities underlie hybrid dysgenesis in peromyscus,” Nature Genetics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 120–124, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. M. Loschiavo, Q. K. Nguyen, A. R. Duselis, and P. B. Vrana, “Mapping and identification of candidate loci responsible for Peromyscus hybrid overgrowth,” Mammalian Genome, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 75–85, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. A. R. Duselis, C. D. Wiley, M. J. O'Neill, and P. B. Vrana, “Genetic evidence for a maternal effect locus controlling genomic imprinting and growth,” Genesis, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 155–165, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. C. Y. Howell, T. H. Bestor, F. Ding et al., “Genomic imprinting disrupted by a maternal effect mutation in the Dnmt1 gene,” Cell, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 829–838, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. A. S. Doherty, M. S. Bartolomei, and R. M. Schultz, “Regulation of stage-specific nuclear translocation of Dnmt1o during preimplantation mouse development,” Developmental Biology, vol. 242, no. 2, pp. 255–266, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. D. Bourchis, G. L. Xu, C. S. Lin, B. Bollman, and T. H. Bestor, “Dnmt3L and the establishment of maternal genomic imprints,” Science, vol. 294, no. 5551, pp. 2536–2539, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. M. Okano, D. W. Bell, D. A. Haber, and E. Li, “DNA methyltransferases Dnmt3a and Dnmt3b are essential for de novo methylation and mammalian development,” Cell, vol. 99, no. 3, pp. 247–257, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. A. Wutz, “Gene silencing in X-chromosome inactivation: advances in understanding facultative heterochromatin formation,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 542–553, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  86. E. Koina, J. Chaumeil, I. K. Greaves, D. J. Tremethick, and J. A. Marshall Graves, “Specific patterns of histone marks accompany X chromosome inactivation in a marsupial,” Chromosome Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 115–126, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  87. J. V. Schmidt, P. G. Matteson, B. K. Jones, X. J. Guan, and S. M. Tilghman, “The Dlk1 and Gtl2 genes are linked and reciprocally imprinted,” Genes and Development, vol. 14, no. 16, pp. 1997–2002, 2000. View at Scopus
  88. L. L. Sandell, X. J. Guan, R. Ingram, and S. M. Tilghman, “Gatm, a creatine synthesis enzyme, is imprinted in mouse placenta,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 100, no. 8, pp. 4622–4627, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. R. S. Pearsall, C. Plass, M. A. Romano et al., “A direct repeat sequence at the Rasgrf1 locus and imprinted expression,” Genomics, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 194–201, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  90. Q. Wang, J. Chow, J. Hong et al., “Recent acquisition of imprinting at the rodent Sfmbt2 locus correlates with insertion of a large block of miRNAs,” BMC Genomics, vol. 12, article 204, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  91. E. E. Mlynarski, C. Obergfell, M. J. Dewey, and R. J. O'Neill, “A unique late-replicating XY to autosome translocation in Peromyscus melanophrys,” Chromosome Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 179–189, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. B. C. Popova, T. Tada, N. Takagi, N. Brockdorff, and T. B. Nesterova, “Attenuated spread of X-inactivation in an X;autosome translocation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103, no. 20, pp. 7706–7711, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  93. C. A. Cooney, A. A. Dave, and G. L. Wolff, “Maternal methyl supplements in mice affect epigenetic variation and DNA methylation of offspring,” Journal of Nutrition, vol. 132, no. 8, pp. 2393S–2400S, 2002. View at Scopus
  94. S. J. Bultman, E. J. Michaud, and R. P. Woychik, “Molecular characterization of the mouse agouti locus,” Cell, vol. 71, no. 7, pp. 1195–1204, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. E. J. Michaud, M. J. van Vugt, S. J. Bultman, H. O. Sweet, M. T. Davisson, and R. P. Woychik, “Differential expression of a new dominant agouti allele (A(iapy)) is correlated with methylation state and is influenced by parental lineage,” Genes and Development, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1463–1472, 1994. View at Scopus
  96. R. A. Waterland, D. C. Dolinoy, J. R. Lin, C. A. Smith, X. Shi, and K. G. Tahiliani, “Maternal methyl supplements increase offspring DNA methylation at Axin fused,” Genesis, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 401–406, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  97. R. Robinson, “The agouti alleles of Peromyscus,” Journal of Heredity, vol. 72, no. 2, p. 132, 1981. View at Scopus
  98. K. M. Dodson, W. D. Dawson, S. O. Van Ooteghem, B. S. Cushing, and G. R. Haigh, “Platinum coat color locus in the deer mouse,” Journal of Heredity, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 183–186, 1987. View at Scopus
  99. C. R. Linnen, E. P. Kingsley, J. D. Jensen, and H. E. Hoekstra, “On the origin and spread of an adaptive allele in deer mice,” Science, vol. 325, no. 5944, pp. 1095–1098, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. M. P. Husby, J. S. Hausbeck, and K. McBee, “Chromosomal aberrancy in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) collected on abandoned coal strip mines, Oklahoma, USA,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 919–925, 1999. View at Scopus
  101. K. L. Phelps and K. Mcbee, “Ecological characteristics of small mammal communities at a superfund site,” American Midland Naturalist, vol. 161, no. 1, pp. 57–68, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. J. M. Levengood and E. J. Heske, “Heavy metal exposure, reproductive activity, and demographic patterns in white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) inhabiting a contaminated floodplain wetland,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 389, no. 2-3, pp. 320–328, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. L. Benbrahim-Tallaa, R. A. Waterland, A. L. Dill, M. M. Webber, and M. P. Waalkes, “Tumor suppressor gene inactivation during cadmium-induced malignant transformation of human prostate cells correlates with overexpression of de Novo DNA methyltransferase,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 115, no. 10, pp. 1454–1459, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. G. Jiang, L. Xu, S. Song et al., “Effects of long-term low-dose cadmium exposure on genomic DNA methylation in human embryo lung fibroblast cells,” Toxicology, vol. 244, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  105. D. Huang, Y. Zhang, Y. Qi, C. Chen, and W. Ji, “Global DNA hypomethylation, rather than reactive oxygen species (ROS), a potential facilitator of cadmium-stimulated K562 cell proliferation,” Toxicology Letters, vol. 179, no. 1, pp. 43–47, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  106. D. Fragou, A. Fragou, S. Kouidou, S. Njau, and L. Kovatsi, “Epigenetic mechanisms in metal toxicity,” Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 343–352, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  107. M. B. Voltura and J. B. French, “Effects of dietary polychlorinated biphenyl exposure on energetics of white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 2757–2761, 2000. View at Scopus
  108. J. B. French Jr., M. B. Voltura, and T. E. Tomasi, “Effects of pre- and postnatal polychlorinated biphenyl exposure on metabolic rate and thyroid hormones of white-footed mice,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1704–1708, 2001.
  109. P. N. Smith, G. P. Cobb, F. M. Harper, B. M. Adair, and S. T. McMurry, “Comparison of white-footed mice and rice rats as biomonitors of polychlorinated biphenyl and metal contamination,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 261–268, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  110. D. A. Alston, B. Tandler, B. Gentles, and E. E. Smith, “Testicular histopathology in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) following exposure to polychlorinated biphenyl,” Chemosphere, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 283–285, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. S. M. Arena, E. H. Greeley, R. S. Halbrook, L. G. Hansen, and M. Segre, “Biological effects of gestational and lactational PCB exposure in neonatal and juvenile C57BL/6 mice,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 272–280, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  112. M. B. Voltura and J. B. French Jr., “Effects of dietary PCB exposure on reproduction in the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 264–269, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  113. R. L. Dickerson, C. S. McMurry, E. E. Smith, M. D. Taylor, S. A. Nowell, and L. T. Frame, “Modulation of endocrine pathways by 4,4'-DDE in the deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 233, no. 1–3, pp. 97–108, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. M. Segre, S. M. Arena, E. H. Greeley, M. J. Melancon, D. A. Graham, and J. B. French, “Immunological and physiological effects of chronic exposure of Peromyscus leucopus to Aroclor 1254 at a concentration similar to that found at contaminated sites,” Toxicology, vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 163–172, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  115. P. J. Wu, E. H. Greeley, L. G. Hansen, and M. Segre, “Immunological, hematological, and biochemical responses in immature white-footed mice following maternal Aroclor 1254 exposure: a possible bioindicator,” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 469–476, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  116. M. S. Johnson, J. W. Ferguson, and S. D. Holladay, “Immune effects of oral 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) exposure to the white-footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus,” International Journal of Toxicology, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 5–11, 2000. View at Scopus
  117. K. A. Thuett, E. H. Roots, L. P. Mitchell, B. A. Gentles, T. A. Anderson, and E. E. Smith, “In utero and lactational exposure to ammonium perchlorate in drinking water: effects on developing deer mice at postnatal day 21,” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part A, vol. 65, no. 15, pp. 1061–1076, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  118. J. N. Smith, J. Liu, M. A. Espino, and G. P. Cobb, “Age dependent acute oral toxicity of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) and two anaerobic N-nitroso metabolites in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus),” Chemosphere, vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 2267–2273, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  119. X. Pan, B. Zhang, J. N. Smith, M. S. Francisco, T. A. Anderson, and G. P. Cobb, “N-Nitroso compounds produced in deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) GI tracts following hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX) exposure,” Chemosphere, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 1164–1170, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  120. J. N. Smith, X. Pan, A. Gentles, E. E. Smith, S. B. Cox, and G. P. Cobb, “Reproductive effects of hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitroso-1,3,5-triazine in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) during a controlled exposure study,” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 446–451, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  121. K. G. Burnett and M. R. Felder, “Peromyscus alcohol dehydrogenase: lack of cross-reacting material in enzyme-negative animals,” Biochemical Genetics, vol. 16, no. 11-12, pp. 1093–1105, 1978. View at Scopus
  122. C. S. Lieber, “The unexpected outcomes of medical research: serendipity and the microsomal ethanol oxidizing system,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 198–202, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  123. K. K. Bhopale, H. Wu, P. J. Boor, V. L. Popov, G. A. S. Ansari, and B. S. Kaphalia, “Metabolic basis of ethanol-induced hepatic and pancreatic injury in hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase deficient deer mice,” Alcohol, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 179–188, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  124. N. Kaminen-Ahola, A. Ahola, M. Maga et al., “Maternal ethanol consumption alters the epigenotype and the phenotype of offspring in a mouse model,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 6, no. 1, Article ID e1000811, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  125. C. D'Addario, S. Johansson, S. Candeletti et al., “Ethanol and acetaldehyde exposure induces specific epigenetic modifications in the prodynorphin gene promoter in a human neuroblastoma cell line,” FASEB Journal, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1069–1075, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  126. A. M. Calafat, X. Ye, L. Y. Wong, J. A. Reidy, and L. L. Needham, “Exposure of the U.S. population to bisphenol A and 4-tertiary-octylphenol: 2003-2004,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 116, no. 1, pp. 39–44, 2008. View at Scopus
  127. D. C. Dolinoy, D. Huang, and R. L. Jirtle, “Maternal nutrient supplementation counteracts bisphenol A-induced DNA hypomethylation in early development,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 32, pp. 13056–13061, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  128. E. Jašarevića, P. T. Sieli, E. E. Twellman et al., “Disruption of adult expression of sexually selected traits by developmental exposure to bisphenol A,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 108, no. 28, pp. 11715–11720, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  129. S. B. Powell, H. A. Newman, J. F. Pendergast, and M. H. Lewis, “A rodent model of spontaneous stereotypyInitial characterization of developmental, environmental, and neurobiological factors,” Physiology and Behavior, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 355–363, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  130. S. Korff, D. J. Stein, and B. H. Harvey, “Stereotypic behaviour in the deer mouse: pharmacological validation and relevance for obsessive compulsive disorder,” Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 348–355, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  131. S. B. Powell, H. A. Newman, J. F. Pendergast, and M. H. Lewis, “A rodent model of spontaneous stereotypy: initial characterization of developmental, environmental, and neurobiological factors,” Physiology & Behavior, vol. 66, pp. 355–363, 1999.
  132. C. Hadley, B. Hadley, S. Ephraim, M. Yang, and M. H. Lewis, “Spontaneous stereotypy and environmental enrichment in deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus): reversibility of experience,” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, vol. 97, no. 2–4, pp. 312–322, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  133. Y. Tanimura, M. C. Yang, A. K. Ottens, and M. H. Lewis, “Development and temporal organization of repetitive behavior in an animal model,” Developmental Psychobiology, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 813–824, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus