The availability of diverse mouse models is revealing increasingly greater information on arterial mechanics, including homeostatic adaptations and pathologic maladaptations to genetic, pharmacological, and surgical manipulations. Fundamental to understanding such biomechanical changes, however, is reliable information on appropriate control vessels. In this paper, we contrast 15 different geometrical and mechanical metrics of biaxial wall mechanics for the ascending aorta across seven different types of possible control mice. We show that there is a comforting similarity across these multiple controls for most, though not all, metrics. In particular, three potential controls, namely, noninduced conditional mice, exhibit higher values of distensibility, an important clinical metric of structural stiffness, and two of these potential controls also have higher values of intrinsic circumferential material stiffness. There is motivation, therefore, to understand better the biomechanical changes that can arise with noninduced Cre-lox or similar approaches for generating mutations conditionally. In cases of germline mutations generated by breeding heterozygous +/− mice, however, the resulting homozygous +/+ mice tend to exhibit properties similar to traditional (C57BL/6) controls.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
April 2017
Technical Briefs
Biomechanical Phenotyping of the Murine Aorta: What Is the Best Control?
C. Bellini,
C. Bellini
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
Search for other works by this author on:
A. W. Caulk,
A. W. Caulk
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
Search for other works by this author on:
G. Li,
G. Li
Department of Surgery,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
Search for other works by this author on:
G. Tellides,
G. Tellides
Department of Surgery,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
Search for other works by this author on:
J. D. Humphrey
J. D. Humphrey
Fellow ASME
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
55 Prospect Street,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
e-mail: jay.humphrey@yale.edu
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
55 Prospect Street,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
e-mail: jay.humphrey@yale.edu
Search for other works by this author on:
C. Bellini
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
A. W. Caulk
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale University,
New Haven, CT 06520
G. Li
Department of Surgery,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
G. Tellides
Department of Surgery,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
J. D. Humphrey
Fellow ASME
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
55 Prospect Street,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
e-mail: jay.humphrey@yale.edu
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Yale University,
55 Prospect Street,
New Haven, CT 06520;
Vascular Biology and Therapeutics Program,
Yale School of Medicine,
New Haven, CT 06520
e-mail: jay.humphrey@yale.edu
1Corresponding author.
Manuscript received October 11, 2016; final manuscript received December 16, 2016; published online January 31, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Jonathan Vande Geest.
J Biomech Eng. Apr 2017, 139(4): 044501 (6 pages)
Published Online: January 31, 2017
Article history
Received:
October 11, 2016
Revised:
December 16, 2016
Citation
Bellini, C., Caulk, A. W., Li, G., Tellides, G., and Humphrey, J. D. (January 31, 2017). "Biomechanical Phenotyping of the Murine Aorta: What Is the Best Control?." ASME. J Biomech Eng. April 2017; 139(4): 044501. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4035551
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Cited By
Optimal Control Formulation for Manual Wheelchair Locomotion Simulations: Influence of Anteroposterior Stability
J Biomech Eng (November 2023)
Related Articles
Reduced Smooth Muscle Contractile Capacity Facilitates Maladaptive Arterial Remodeling
J Biomech Eng (April,2022)
Reduced Biaxial Contractility in the Descending Thoracic Aorta of Fibulin-5 Deficient Mice
J Biomech Eng (May,2016)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Vibration Analysis of the Seated Human Body in Vertical Direction
International Conference on Computer Technology and Development, 3rd (ICCTD 2011)
Subsection NE—Class MC Components
Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, Volume 1, Fifth Edition
Section III: Subsections NC and ND—Class 2 and 3 Components
Companion Guide to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, Volume 1, Fifth Edition