DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multiphasic Analysis of Growth Curve of Body Weight in Mice

  • Kurnianto, E. (Faculty of Animal Sciences, Diponegoro Universiy) ;
  • Shinjo, A. (Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus) ;
  • Suga, D. (Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus)
  • Received : 1998.05.11
  • Accepted : 1998.11.26
  • Published : 1999.05.01

Abstract

The present study describes the analysis of the multiphasic growth function (MGF) to body weight in laboratory and wild mice. Three genetic groups of laboratory mice (Mus musculus domesticus) designated $CF_{{\sharp}1}$, C3H/HeNCrj and C57BL/6NCrj, and a genetic group of Yonakuni wild mice (Mus musculus molossinus yonakuni, Yk) were used. Mean body weights of each genetic group-sex subclass from birth to 69 days of age taken at 3-day intervals were analyzed by a monophasic, diphasic and triphasic functions for describing growth patterns. A comparison among the three functions of the MGF was based on the goodness-of-fit criteria: residual standard deviation (RSD), adjusted R-square (Adj $R^2$) and Akaike's information criterion (AIC). Result of this study indicated that body weight averaged heavier for males than for females. Among the four genetic groups within both sexes, $CF_{{\sharp}1}$ showed the highest, subsequent followed by C3H/HeNCrj, C57BL/6NCrj and Yk. Comparison among the three functions revealed that the triphasic function was the best fit to growth data, with the lowest RSD, the highest Adj $R^2$ and the lowest AIC, for the four genetic groups. For the triphasic function, RSD within each genetic group-sex subclass was similar for males and females. Adj $R^2$ was 0.999 for all genetic group-sex subclasses. AIC for laboratory mice males and females ranged from -70.48 to 66.50 and from -92.81 to -68.64, respectively; whereas for Yk wild mice males was -74.29 and females -78.42.

Keywords

Multiphasic Growth Function;Goodness-of-fit Criteria;Body Weight;Mice

Cited by

  1. Application of Non-Arrhenius Models to the Viscosity of Mold Flux vol.47, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0651-8