» Articles » PMID: 27648148

Rodent Model Choice Has Major Impact on Variability of Standard Preclinical Readouts Associated with Diabetes and Obesity Research

Overview
Journal Am J Transl Res
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Sep 21
PMID 27648148
Citations 20
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Laboratory rodents are available as either genetically defined inbred strains or genetically undefined outbred stocks. As outbred rodents are generally thought to display a higher level of phenotypic variation compared to inbred strains, it has been argued that experimental studies should preferentially be performed by using inbred rodents. However, very few studies with adequate sample sizes have in fact compared phenotypic variation between inbred strains and outbred stocks of rodents and moreover, these studies have not reached consistent conclusions. The aim of the present study was to compare the phenotypic variation in commonly used experimental readouts within obesity and diabetes research, for four of the most frequently used mouse strains: inbred C57BL/6 and BALB/c and outbred NMRI and CD-1 mice. The variation for all readouts was examined by calculating the coefficient of variation (CV), i.e., the relative variation, including a 95% confidence interval for the CV. We observed that for the majority of the selected readouts, inbred and outbred mice showed comparable phenotypic variation. The observed variation appeared highly influenced by strain choice and type of readout, which suggests that these collectively would serve as more predictive of the phenotypic variation than the more general classification of mice as inbred or outbred based on genetic heterogeneity.

Citing Articles

Morphological phenotyping of the aging cochlea in inbred C57BL/6N and outbred CD1 mouse strains.

Attanasio C, Palladino A, Giaquinto D, Scavizzi F, Raspa M, Peres C Aging Cell. 2024; 24(1):e14362.

PMID: 39482905 PMC: 11709085. DOI: 10.1111/acel.14362.


Supervised machine learning of outbred mouse genotypes to predict hepatic immunological tolerance of individuals.

Morita-Nakagawa M, Okamura K, Nakabayashi K, Inanaga Y, Shimizu S, Guo W Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):24399.

PMID: 39420174 PMC: 11487050. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-73999-0.


Comparison of Preimplantation Mouse Embryos with Different Genetic Backgrounds as Models for Evaluating Human Embryo Culture Media Composition.

Korchivaia E, Ivanova A, Volodyaev I, Semenova M Reprod Sci. 2024; 31(12):3688-3696.

PMID: 39390272 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-024-01726-1.


Advancing mouse models for transplantation research.

Cravedi P, Riella L, Ford M, Valujskikh A, Menon M, Kirk A Am J Transplant. 2024; 24(8):1362-1368.

PMID: 38219866 PMC: 11239793. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajt.2024.01.006.


Characterization of excretory/secretory products of the Taenia crassiceps cysticercus involved in the induction of regulatory T cells in vivo.

Morales-Ruiz V, Lopez-Recinos D, Castaneda M, Guevara-Salinas A, Parada-Colin C, Gomez-Fuentes S Parasitol Res. 2023; 122(7):1489-1497.

PMID: 37115316 DOI: 10.1007/s00436-023-07847-x.


References
1.
Singh S . Preclinical pharmacokinetics: an approach towards safer and efficacious drugs. Curr Drug Metab. 2006; 7(2):165-82. DOI: 10.2174/138920006775541552. View

2.
Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans V . Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment by means of confidence intervals. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991; 29(1):1-8. View

3.
Portelli J, Aourz N, De Bundel D, Meurs A, Smolders I, Michotte Y . Intrastrain differences in seizure susceptibility, pharmacological response and basal neurochemistry of Wistar rats. Epilepsy Res. 2009; 87(2-3):234-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2009.09.009. View

4.
Kelley K . Sample size planning for the coefficient of variation from the accuracy in parameter estimation approach. Behav Res Methods. 2008; 39(4):755-66. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192966. View

5.
Biggers J, McLaren A, Michie D . Variance control in the animal house. Nature. 1958; 182(4628):77-80. DOI: 10.1038/182077a0. View