Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: A cross-laboratory study (Physiological Genomics (2008) 34, (243-255) DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.90207.2008);Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: A cross-laboratory study

Physiological Genomics

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 243-255

  Mandillo, Silvia ^d   Tucci, Valter ^c   Hölter, Sabine M ^a   Meziane, Hamid ^b   Al Banchaabouchi, Mumna ^e   Kallnik, Magdalena ^a   Lad, Heena V ^c   Nolan, Patrick M ^c   Ouagazzal, Abdel Mouttalib ^b   Coghill, Emma L ^c   Gale, Karin ^e   Golini, Elisabetta ^d   Jacquot, Sylvie ^b   Krezel, Wojtek ^b   Parker, Andy ^c   Riet, Fabrice ^b   Schneider, Ilka ^a   Marazziti, Daniela ^d   Auwerx, Johan ^b   Brown, Steve D M ^c   Chambon, Pierre ^b   Rosenthal, Nadia ^e   Tocchini Valentini, Glauco ^d   Wurst, Wolfgang ^a   more..

^a INSTITUTE OF EPIDEMIOLOGY   (Germany)

^b INSTITUT CHARLES SADRON   (France)

^c MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United Kingdom)

^d CNR   (Italy)

^e EUROPEAN MOLECULAR BIOLOGY LABORATORY EMBL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Acoustic startle response; Grip strength; Inbred mouse strains; Open field; Prepulse inhibition; Rotarod; SHIRPA; Tail flick; Test battery; Y maze

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL MODEL; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FUNCTIONAL GENOMICS; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GRIP STRENGTH; MALE; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 57049158886     PISSN: 10948341     EISSN: 15312267     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.zh7-3430-corr.2010     Document Type: Erratum

References (53)

1. Augustsson H, Meyerson BJ. Exploration and risk assessment: a comparative study of male house mice (Mus musculus musculus) and two laboratory strains. Physiol Behav 81: 685-698, 2004.
2. Austin CP, Battey JF, Bradley A, Bucan M, Capecchi M, Collins FS, Dove WF, Duyk G, Dymecki S, Eppig JT, Grieder FB, Heintz N, Hicks G, Insel TR, Joyner A, Koller BH, Lloyd KC, Magnuson T, Moore MW, Nagy A, Pollock JD, Roses AD, Sands AT, Seed B, Skarnes WC, Snoddy J, Soriano P, Stewart DJ, Stewart F, Stillman B, Varmus H, Varticovski L, Verma IM, Vogt TF, von Melchner H, Witkowski J, Woychik RP, Wurst W, Yancopoulos GD, Young SG, Zambrowicz B. The knockout mouse project. Nat Genet 36: 921-924, 2004.
3. Auwerx J, Avner P, Baldock R, Ballabio A, Balling R, Barbacid M, Berns A, Bradley A, Brown S, Carmeliet P, Chambon P, Cox R, Davidson D, Davies K, Duboule D, Forejt J, Granucci F, Hastie N, de Angelis MH, Jackson I, Kioussis D, Kollias G, Lathrop M, Lendahl U, Malumbres M, von Melchner H, Muller W, Partanen J, Ricciardi-Castagnoli P, Rigby P, Rosen B, Rosenthal N, Skarnes B, Stewart AF, Thornton J, Tocchini-Valentini G, Wagner E, Wahli W, Wurst W. The European dimension for the mouse genome mutagenesis program. Nat Genet 36: 925-927, 2004.
4. Bouwknecht JA, Paylor R. Behavioral and physiological mouse assays for anxiety: a survey in nine mouse strains. Behav Brain Res 136: 489-501, 2002.
5. Bouwknecht JA, van der Gugten J, Groenink L, Olivier B, Paylor RE. Effects of repeated testing in two inbred strains on flesinoxan dose-response curves in three mouse models for anxiety. Eur J Pharmacol 494: 35-44, 2004.
6. Brown SD, Chambon P, de Angelis MH. EMPReSS: standardized phenotype screens for functional annotation of the mouse genome. Nat Genet 37: 1155, 2005.
7. Brown SD, Hancock JM, Gates H. Understanding mammalian genetic systems: the challenge of phenotyping in the mouse. PLoS Genet 2: e118, 2006.
8. Carola V, D'Olimpio F, Brunamonti E, Mangia F, Renzi P. Evaluation of the elevated plus-maze and open-field tests for the assessment of anxiety-related behaviour in inbred mice. Behav Brain Res 134: 49-57, 2002.
9. Chesler EJ, Wilson SG, Lariviere WR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Mogil JS. Identification and ranking of genetic and laboratory environment factors influencing a behavioral trait, thermal nociception, via computational analysis of a large data archive. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 26: 907-923, 2002.
10. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC. Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. Science 284: 1670-1672, 1999.
11. Crawley JN. Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice: experimental design and evaluation of general health, sensory functions, motor abilities, and specific behavioral tests. Brain Res 835: 18-26, 1999.
12. Crawley JN. Behavioral phenotyping strategies for mutant mice. Neuron 57: 809-818, 2008.
13. Crawley JN, Belknap JK, Collins A, Crabbe JC, Frankel W, Henderson N, Hitzemann RJ, Maxson SC, Miner LL, Silva AJ, Wehner JM, Wynshaw-Boris A, Paylor R. Behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains: implications and recommendations for molecular studies. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 132: 107-124, 1997.
14. D'Amour FE, Smith DL. A method for determining loss of pain sensation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 41: 419-424, 1941.
15. Deacon RM, Bannerman DM, Kirby BP, Croucher A, Rawlins JN. Effects of cytotoxic hippocampal lesions in mice on a cognitive test battery. Behav Brain Res 133: 57-68, 2002.
16. Ducottet C, Belzung C. Correlations between behaviours in the elevated plus-maze and sensitivity to unpredictable subchronic mild stress: evidence from inbred strains of mice. Behav Brain Res 156: 153-162, 2005.
17. Dunham NW, Miya TS. A note on a simple apparatus for detecting neurological deficit in rats and mice. J Am Pharm Assoc (Baltim) 46: 208-209, 1957.
18. Galsworthy MJ, Amrein I, Kuptsov PA, Poletaeva II, Zinn P, Rau A, Vyssotski A, Lipp HP. A comparison of wild-caught wood mice and bank voles in the Intellicage: assessing exploration, daily activity patterns and place learning paradigms. Behav Brain Res 157: 211-217, 2005.
19. Gerlai R. Phenomics: fiction or the future? Trends Neurosci 25: 506-509, 2002.
20. Hiramatsu M, Sasaki M, Nabeshima T, Kameyama T. Effects of dynorphin A (1-13) on carbon monoxide-induced delayed amnesia in mice. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 56: 73-79, 1997.
21. Kas MJ, Van Ree JM. Dissecting complex behaviours in the post-genomic era. Trends Neurosci 27: 366-369, 2004.
22. Malmberg AB, Bannon AW. Models of nociception: hot-plate, tail-flick, and formalin test in rodents. In: Current Protocols in Neuroscience, edited by Crawley JN, Gerfen CR, Rogawski MA, Sibley DR, Skolnick P, Wray S. New York: John Wiley, p. 8.9.1- 8.9.2, 1999.
23. McFadyen MP, Kusek G, Bolivar VJ, Flaherty L. Differences among eight inbred strains of mice in motor ability and motor learning on a rotorod. Genes Brain Behav 2: 214-219, 2003.
24. McIlwain KL, Merriweather MY, Yuva-Paylor LA, Paylor R. The use of behavioral test batteries: effects of training history. Physiol Behav 73: 705-717, 2001.
25. Meyer OA, Tilson HA, Byrd WC, Riley MT. A method for the routine assessment of fore- and hindlimb grip strength of rats and mice. Neurobehav Toxicol 1: 233-236, 1979.
26. Meziane H, Ouagazzal AM, Aubert L, Wietrzych M, Krezel W. Estrous cycle effects on behavior of C57BL/6J and BALB/cByJ female mice: implications for phenotyping strategies. Genes Brain Behav 6: 192-200, 2007.
27. Mogil JS, Nessim LA, Wilson SG. Strain-dependent effects of supraspinal orphanin FQ/nociceptin on thermal nociceptive sensitivity in mice. Neurosci Lett 261: 147-150, 1999.
28. Montkowski A, Poettig M, Mederer A, Holsboer F. Behavioural performance in three substrains of mouse strain 129. Brain Res 762: 12-18, 1997.
29. Morice E, Denis C, Giros B, Nosten-Bertrand M. Phenotypic expression of the targeted null-mutation in the dopamine transporter gene varies as a function of the genetic background. Eur J Neurosci 20: 120-126, 2004.
30. Nolan PM, Peters J, Strivens M, Rogers D, Hagan J, Spurr N, Gray IC, Vizor L, Brooker D, Whitehill E, Washbourne R, Hough T, Greenaway S, Hewitt M, Liu X, McCormack S, Pickford K, Selley R, Wells C, Tymowska-Lalanne Z, Roby P, Glenister P, Thornton C, Thaung C, Stevenson JA, Arkell R, Mburu P, Hardisty R, Kiernan A, Erven A, Steel KP, Voegeling S, Guenet JL, Nickols C, Sadri R, Nasse M, Isaacs A, Davies K, Browne M, Fisher EM, Martin J, Rastan S, Brown SD, Hunter J. A systematic, genome-wide, phenotype-driven mutagenesis programme for gene function studies in the mouse. Nat Genet 25: 440-443, 2000.
31. Ouagazzal AM, Jenck F, Moreau JL. Drug-induced potentiation of prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle reflex in mice: a model for detecting antipsychotic activity? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 156: 273-283, 2001.
32. Paylor R, Spencer CM, Yuva-Paylor LA, Pieke-Dahl S. The use of behavioral test batteries, II: effect of test interval. Physiol Behav 87: 95-102, 2006.
33. Paylor R, Crawley JN. Inbred strain differences in prepulse inhibition of the mouse startle response. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 132: 169-180, 1997.
34. Rogers DC, Jones DN, Nelson PR, Jones CM, Quilter CA, Robinson TL, Hagan JJ. Use of SHIRPA and discriminant analysis to characterise marked differences in the behavioural phenotype of six inbred mouse strains. Behav Brain Res 105: 207-217, 1999.
35. Rogers DC, Peters J, Martin JE, Ball S, Nicholson SJ, Witherden AS, Hafezparast M, Latcham J, Robinson TL, Quilter CA, Fisher EM. SHIRPA, a protocol for behavioral assessment: validation for longitudinal study of neurological dysfunction in mice. Neurosci Lett 306: 89-92, 2001.
36. Rustay NR, Wahlsten D, Crabbe JC. Influence of task parameters on rotarod performance and sensitivity to ethanol in mice. Behav Brain Res 141: 237-249, 2003.
37. Sarter M, Bodewitz G, Stephens DN. Attenuation of scopolamineinduced impairment of spontaneous alteration behaviour by antagonist but not inverse agonist and agonist beta-carbolines. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 94: 491-495, 1988.
38. Tarantino LM, Gould TJ, Druhan JP, Bucan M. Behavior and mutagenesis screens: the importance of baseline analysis of inbred strains. Mamm Genome 11: 555-564, 2000.
39. Tecott LH, Nestler EJ. Neurobehavioral assessment in the information age. Nat Neurosci 7: 462-466, 2004.
40. Tucci V, Blanco G, Nolan P. Behavioural and neurological phenotyping in the mouse. In: Standards of Mouse Model Phenotyping, edited by Hrabe de Angelis M, Chambon P, Brown S: Wiley, p. 135-176, 2006.
41. Tucci V, Lad HV, Parker A, Polley S, Brown SD, Nolan PM. Gene-environment interactions differentially affect mouse strain behavioral parameters. Mamm Genome 17: 1113-1120, 2006.
42. Van Dam D, Vloeberghs E, Abramowski DSM, De Deyn PP. APP23 mice as a model of Alzheimer's disease: an example of a transgenic approach to modeling a CNS disorder. CNS Spectr 10: 207-222, 2005.
43. Van der Staay FJ, Steckler T. The fallacy of behavioral phenotyping without standardisation. Genes Brain Behav 1: 9-13, 2002.
44. Van Riezen H, Boersma L. A new method for quantitative grip strength evaluation. Eur J Pharmacol 6: 353-356, 1969.
45. Voikar V, Koks S, Vasar E, Rauvala H. Strain and gender differences in the behavior of mouse lines commonly used in transgenic studies. Physiol Behav 72: 271-281, 2001.
46. Voikar V, Vasar E, Rauvala H. Behavioral alterations induced by repeated testing in C57BL/6J and 129S2/Sv mice: implications for phenotyping screens. Genes Brain Behav 3: 27-38, 2004.
47. Wahlsten D. Standardizing tests of mouse behavior: reasons, recommendations, and reality. Physiol Behav 73: 695-704, 2001.
48. Wall PM, Blanchard RJ, Yang M, Blanchard DC. Infralimbic D2 receptor influences on anxiety-like behavior and active memory/attention in CD-1 mice. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 27: 395-410, 2003.
49. Wall PM, Messier C. Infralimbic kappa opioid and muscarinic M1 receptor interactions in the concurrent modulation of anxiety and memory. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 160: 233-244, 2002.
50. Wilson SG, Mogil JS. Measuring pain in the (knockout) mouse: big challenges in a small mammal. Behav Brain Res 125: 65-73, 2001.
51. Wolfer DP, Muller U, Stagliar M, Lipp HP. Assessing the effects of the 129/Sv genetic background on swimming navigation learning in transgenic mutants: a study using mice with a modified beta-amyloid precursor protein gene. Brain Res 771: 1-13, 1997.
52. Wurbel H. Behavioral phenotyping enhanced-beyond (environmental) standardization. Genes Brain Behav 1: 3-8, 2002.
53. Wurbel H. Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nat Genet 26: 263, 2000.