4.2 Article

Japanese Bobtail: vertebral morphology and genetic characterization of an established cat breed

期刊

JOURNAL OF FELINE MEDICINE AND SURGERY
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 719-726

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1098612X14558147

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources [R24 RR016094]
  2. Office of Research Infrastructure Programs [OD R24OD010928]
  3. Winn Feline Foundation [W10-014, W10-015]
  4. Center for Companion Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis [2008-36-F]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several cat breeds are defined by morphological variation of the tail. The Japanese Bobtail is a breed that has been accepted for registration only within the past 50 years; however, the congenital kinked tail variants defining this breed were documented in the Far East centuries ago and the cats are considered good luck' in several Asian cultures. The recent discovery of the mutation for the tailless Manx phenotype has demonstrated that the Japanese Bobtail does not have a causative mutation in the same gene (T-Box). Here, a simple segregation analysis of cats bred from a pedigreed Japanese Bobtail demonstrated a simple autosomal dominant mode of inheritance with variable expression of the tail length and kink placement. Unexpectedly, radiological examinations of the entire vertebral column of kink-tailed cats indicated variation from the normal vertebral feline formula (C7, T13, L7, S3, Cd20-24), including cats with mostly one reduction of thoracic vertebrae (C7, T12, L7, S3), and an average of 15.8 caudal vertebrae. A few cats had variation in the number of cervical vertebrae. Several transitional vertebrae and anomalous ribs were noted. One cat had a bifid vertebra in the tail. Most cats had hemivertebrae that were usually included in the tail kink, one of which was demonstrated by gross pathology and histopathology. The abnormal vertebral formula or the placement of the kink in the tail did not coincide with morbidity or mortality.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据