Effect of population heterogenization on the reproducibility of mouse behavior: A multi-laboratory study

PLoS ONE

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Richter, S H ^a,b,c   Garner, Joseph P ^d   Zipser, Benjamin ^c   Lewejohann, Lars ^c   Sachser, Norbert ^c   Touma, Chadi ^e   Schindler, Britta ^e   Chourbaji, Sabine ^a   Brandwein, Christiane ^a   Gass, Peter ^a   van Stipdonk, Niek ^f   van der Harst, Johanneke ^f   Spruijt, Berry ^f   Võikar, Vootele ^g,h   Wolfer, David P ^h   Würbel, Hanno ^b  

^a CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH   (Germany)

^b JUSTUS LIEBIG UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^d PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE OF PSYCHIATRY   (Germany)

^f Delta Phenomics BV   (Netherlands)

^g UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^h UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL TEST; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; EXPERIMENTAL TEST; FEMALE; HETEROGENEITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LABORATORY TEST; MOUSE; NONHUMAN; OPEN FIELD TEST; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDIZATION; STRAIN DIFFERENCE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION; ANIMALS; ANIMALS, LABORATORY; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; FEMALE; MICE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

ANIMALIA; MUS;

EID: 79551647459     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016461     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Baggerly KA (2004) Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments. Bioinformatics 20: 777.
2. Irizarry RA, Warren D, Spencer F, Kim IF, Biswal S, et al. (2005) Multiplelaboratory comparison of microarray platforms. Nat Methods 2: 345-350.
3. Larkin JE, Frank BC, Gavras H, Quackenbush J (2005) Independence and reproducibility across microarray platforms. Nat Methods 2: 337-343.
4. Members of the Toxicogenomics Research Consortium (2005) Standardizing global gene expression analysis between laboratories and across platforms. Nat Methods 2: 351-356.
5. Yang H, Harrington CA, Vartanian K, Coldren CD, Hall R, et al. (2008) Randomization in laboratory procedure is key to obtaining reproducible microarray results. PLoS ONE 3: e3724.
6. Anderson CA, Lindsay JJ, Bushman BJ (1999) Research in the psychological laboratory: truth or triviality? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 8: 3-9.
7. Vissers G, Heyne G, Peters V, Guerts J (2001) The validity of laboratory research in social and behavioral science. Qual Quan 35: 129-145.
8. European Union's Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1986) Official Journal L 358: 1-28.
9. National Research Council (1996) Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. Washington: National Academy Press.
10. US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (1990) Animal Welfare Act 22. U.S. Riverdale: Department of Agriculture.
11. Cabib S, Orsini C, Le Moal M, Piazza PV (2000) Abolition and reversal of strain differences in behavioural responses to drugs of abuse after brief experience. Science 289: 463-465.
12. Chesler EJ, Wilson SG, Lariviere WR, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Mogil JS (2002) 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.
13. Crabbe JC, Wahlsten D, Dudek BC (1999) Genetics of mouse behaviour: Interactions with laboratory environment. Science 284: 1670-1672.
14. A receptor mutant mouse studies. Nat Neurosci 3: 1059.
15. Greenman DL, Allaben WT, Burger GT, Kodell RL (1993) Bioassay for carcinogenicity of rotenone in female wistar rats. Fundam Appl Toxicol 20: 383-390.
16. Kafkafi N, Benjamini Y, Sakov A, Elmer GI, Golani I (2005) Genotypeenvironment interactions in mouse behavior: A way out of the problem. PNAS 102: 4619-4624.
17. Mandillo S, Tucci V, Hölter SM, Meziane H, Al Banchaabouchi M, et al. (2008) Reliability, robustness and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study. Physiol Genomics 34: 243-255.
18. Tachibana T, Terada Y, Fukunishi K, Tanimura T (1996) Estimated magnitude of behavioral effects of phenytoin in rats and its reproducibility: A collaborative behavioral teratology study in Japan. Physiol Behav 60: 941-952.
19. Valdar W, Solberg LC, Gauguier D, Cookson WO, Rawlins JNP, et al. (2006) Genetic and environmental effects on complex traits in mice. Genetics 174: 959-984.
20. Wahlsten D, Metten P, Phillips TJ, Boehm SL, Burkhart-Kasch S, et al. (2003) Different data from different labs: lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction. J Neurobiol 54: 283-311.
21. Weil CS, Scala RA (1971) Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 19: 276-360.
22. Wolfer DP, Litvin O, Morf S, Nitsch RM, Lipp HP, et al. (2004) Laboratory animal welfare: cage enrichment and mouse behaviour. Nature 432: 821-822.
23. Wahlsten D (2001) Standardizing tests of mouse behavior: Reasons, recommendations, and reality. Physiol Behav 73: 695-705.
24. Beynen AC, Gärtner K, van Zutphen LFM (2003a) Standardization of animal experimentation. In: van Zutphen LFM, Baumans V, Beynen AC, eds. Principles of Laboratory Animal Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp 103-110.
25. Festing MFW (2004a) Good experimental design and statistics can save animals, but how can it be promoted? Altern Lab Anim 32: 133-135.
26. Festing MFW (2004b) Refinement and reduction through the control of variation. Altern Lab Anim 32: 259-263.
27. Öbrink KJ, Rehbinder C (2000) Animal definition: a necessity for the validity of animal experiments. Lab Anim 34: 121-130.
28. Würbel H (2000) Behaviour and the standardization fallacy. Nat Genet 26: 263.
29. Würbel H (2002) Behavioral phenotyping enhanced - beyond (environmental) standardization. Genes Brain Behav 1: 3-8.
30. de Witt TJ, Scheiner SM (2004) Phenotypic Plasticity. Functional and Conceptual Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Würbel H, Garner JP (2007) Refinement of rodent research through environmental enrichment and systematic randomization. NC3Rs #9: 1-9. Available: www.nc3rs.org.uk via the Internet.
32. Richter SH, Garner JP, Würbel H (2009) Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments? Nat Methods 6: 257-261.
33. Paylor R (2009) Questioning standardization in science. Nat Methods 6: 253-254.
34. Richter SH, Garner JP, Auer C, Kunert J, Würbel H (2010) Systematic variation improves reproducibility of animal experiments. Nat Methods 7: 167-168.
35. Lewejohann L, Reinhard C, Schrewe A, Brandewiede J, Haemisch A, et al. (2006) Environmental bias? Effects of housing conditions, laboratory environment and experimenter on behavioral tests. Genes Brain Behav 5: 64-72.
36. Benaroya-Milshtein N, Hollander N, Apter A, Kukulansky T, Raz N, et al. (2004) Environmental enrichment in mice decreases anxiety, attenuates stress responses and enhances natural killer cell activity. Eur J Neurosci 20: 1341-1347.
37. Dahlborn K, van Gils BAA, van de Weerd HA, van Dijk JE, Baumans V (1996) Evaluation of long-term environmental enrichment in the mouse. Scand J Lab Anim Sci 23: 97-101.
38. Hascoet M, Colombel M-C, Bourin M (1999) Influence of age on behavioural response in the light/dark paradigm. Physiol Behav 66: 567-570.
39. Imhof JT, Coelho ZMI, Schmitt ML, Morato GS, Carobrez AP (1993) Influence of gender and age on performance of rats in the elevated plus maze apparatus. Behav Brain Res 56: 177-180.
40. Marashi V, Barnekow A, Ossendorf E, Sachser N (2003) Effects of environmental enrichment on behavioral, endocrinological, and immunological parameters in male mice. Horm Behav 43: 281-292.
41. Prior H, Sachser N (1995) Effects of enriched housing environment on the behaviour of young male and female mice in four exploratory tasks. J Exp Anim Sci 37: 57-68.
42. van de Weerd HA, Baumans V, Koolhaas JM, van Zutphen LFM (1994) Strain specific behavioural response to environmental enrichment in the mouse. J Exp Anim Sci 36: 117-127.
43. Scharmann W (1993) Housing of mice in an enriched environment. Welfare and Science. In Proceedings of the fifth FELASA Symposium, Brighton, UK. pp 335-337.
44. Herzberg AM, Lagakos SW (1991) Cage allocation designs for rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environ Health Perspect 96: 199-202.
45. Crawley JN (2000) What's wrong with my mouse? Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
46. Pellow S, Chopin P, File SE, Briley M (1985) Validation of open:close arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat. J Neurosci Methods 14: 149-167.
47. Sheperd JK, Grewal SS, Fletcher A, Bill DJ, Dourish CT (1994) Behavioural and pharmacological characterisation of the elevated ''zero-maze'' as an animal model of anxiety. Psychopharmacologia 116: 56-64.
48. Hall CS (1934) Emotional behavior in the rat. I. Defaecation and urination as measures of individual differences in emotionality. J Comp Psychol 18: 385-403.
49. Hall CS (1936) Emotional behavior in the rat. III. The relationship between emotionality and ambulatory behaviour. J Comp Psychol 22: 345-52.
50. Choleris E, Thomas AW, Kavaliers M, Prato FS (2001) A detailed ethological analysis of the mouse open-field test: effects of diazepam, chlordiazepoxide and an extremely low frequency pulsed magnetic field. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 25: 253-260.
51. Dulawa SC, Grandy DK, Low MJ, Paulus MP, Geyer MA (1999) Dopamine D4 receptor-knock-out mice exhibit reduced exploration of novel stimuli. J Neurosci 19: 9550-9556.
52. Beynen AC, Festing MFM, van Montfort MAJ (2003b) Design of animal experiments. In: van Zutphen LFM, Baumans V, Beynen AC, eds. Principles of Laboratory Animal Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier. pp 219-249.
53. Quinn GP, Keough MJ (2002) Randomized blocks and simple repeated measures: unreplicated two factor designs. In: Quinn GP, Keough MJ, eds. Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp 262-300.
54. Bouwknecht JA, Paylor R (2002) Behavioral and physiological mouse asays for anxiety: a survey in nine mouse strains. Behav Brain Res 136: 489-501.
55. Cabib S, Puglisi-Allegra S, Ventura R (2002) The contribution of comparative studies in inbred strains of mice to the understanding of the hyperactive phenotype. Behav Brain Res 130: 103-109.
56. Crawley JN, Belknap JK, Collins A, Crabbe JC, Frankel W, et al. (1997) Behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains: implications and recommendations for molecular studies. Psychopharmacol 132: 107-124.
57. Kafkafi N, Benjamini DL, Benjamini Y, Mayo CL, Elmer GI, et al. (2003) SEE locomotor behavior test discriminates C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse inbred strains across laboratories and protocol conditions. Behav Neurosci 117: 464-477.
58. Lad HV, Liu L, Paya-Cano JL, Parsons MJ, Kember R, et al. (2010) Behavioural battery testing: Evaluation and behavioural outcomes in 8 inbred mouse strains. Physiol Behav 99: 301-316.
59. Võikar V, Polus A, Vasar E, Rauvala H (2005) Long-term individual housing in C57BL/6J and DBA/2 mice: assessment of behavioral consequences. Genes Brain Behav 4: 240-252.
60. Martin P, Bateson P (2002) Measuring behaviour. An introductory guide. Second edition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
61. Wotjak CT (2004) Of mice and men. Potentials and caveats of behavioural experiments with mice. BIF Futura 19: 158-169.
62. de Visser L, van den Bos R, Kuurman WW, Kas MJ, Spruijt BM (2006) Novel approach to the behavioural characterization of inbred mice: automated home cage observations. Genes Brain Behav 5: 458-66.
63. Galsworthy MJ, Amrein I, Kuptsov PA, Poletaeva II, Zinn P, et al. (2005) 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.
64. Tautz D (2000) A genetic uncertainty problem. Trends Genet 16: 475-477.
65. Tucci V, Lad HV, Parker A, Polley S, Brown SDM, et al. (2006) Geneenvironment interactions differentially affect mouse strain behavioural parameters. Mamm Genome 17: 1113-1120.
66. van der Staay FJ, Steckler T (2001) Behavioural phenotyping of mouse mutants. Behav Brain Res 125: 3-12.
67. van der Staay FJ, Steckler T (2002) The fallacy of behavioral phenotyping without standardisation. Genes Brain Behav 1: 9-13.
68. Chourbaji S, Zacher C, Sanchis-Segura C, Spanagel R, Gass P (2005) Social and structural housing conditions influence the development of a depressive-like phenotype in the learned helplessness paradigm in male mice. Behav Brain Res 164: 100-6.
69. Chourbaji S, Brandwein C, Vogt MA, Dormann C, Hellweg R, et al. (2008) Nature vs. nurture: can enrichment rescue the behavioural phenotype of BDNF heterozygous mice? Behav Brain Res 192: 254-8.
70. Garcia AMB, Cardenas FP, Morato S (2005) Effect of different illumination levels on rat behavior in the elevated plus-maze. Physiol Behav 85: 265-270.
71. Hossain SM, Wong BKY, Simpson EM (2004) The dark phase improves genetic discrimination for some high throughput mouse behavioral phenotyping. Genes Brain Behav 3: 167-177.
72. Milligan SR, Sales GD, Khirnykh K (1993) Sound levels in rooms housing laboratory animals: an uncontrolled daily variable. Physiol Behav 53: 1067-1076.
73. Sales GD, Wilson KJ, Spencer KE, Milligan SR (1988) Environmental ultrasound in laboratories and animal houses: a possible cause for concern in the welfare and use of laboratory animals. Lab Anim 22: 369-75.