Comment | Published:

Comparing phenotypic variation between inbred and outbred mice

Nature Methodsvolume 15pages994996 (2018) | Download Citation

Inbred mice are preferred over outbred mice because it is assumed that they display less trait variability. We compared coefficients of variation and did not find evidence of greater trait stability in inbred mice. We conclude that contrary to conventional wisdom, outbred mice might be better subjects for most biomedical research.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data availability

Data used in this paper are provided as Supplementary Information.

References

  1. 1.

    Taylor, K., Gordon, N., Langley, G. & Higgins, W. Altern. Lab. Anim. 36, 327–342 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Festing, M. F. W. ILAR J. 55, 399–404 (2014).

  3. 3.

    Biggers, J. D. & Claringbold, P. J. Nature 174, 596–597 (1954).

  4. 4.

    Jensen, V. S., Porsgaard, T., Lykkesfeldt, J. & Hvid, H. Am. J. Transl. Res. 8, 3574–3584 (2016).

  5. 5.

    Festing, M. F. W. Toxicol. Pathol. 38, 681–690 (2010).

  6. 6.

    Festing, M. F. W. Neurobiol. Aging 20, 237–244 (1999).

  7. 7.

    Chia, R., Achilli, F., Festing, M. F. W. & Fisher, E. M. C. Nat. Genet. 37, 1181–1186 (2005).

  8. 8.

    Murray, S. A. et al. PLoS One 5, e12418 (2010).

  9. 9.

    Tanaka, T. Reprod. Toxicol. 12, 613–617 (1998).

  10. 10.

    Chalfin, L. et al. Nat. Commun. 5, 4569 (2014).

  11. 11.

    Fonio, E., Golani, I. & Benjamini, Y. Nat. Methods 9, 1167–1170 (2012).

  12. 12.

    Dohm, M. R., Richardson, C. S. & Garland, T. Jr. Am. J. Physiol. 267, R1098–R1108 (1994).

  13. 13.

    Nevison, C. M., Barnard, C. J. & Hurst, J. L. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 81, 387–398 (2003).

  14. 14.

    Tuttle, A. H. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5515–5520 (2017).

  15. 15.

    Miller, R. A. et al. Neurobiol. Aging 20, 217–231 (1999).

  16. 16.

    Prendergast, B. J., Onishi, K. G. & Zucker, I. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 40, 1–5 (2014).

  17. 17.

    Logan, R. W. et al. Genes Brain Behav. 12, 424–437 (2013).

  18. 18.

    Mogil, J. S. Lab. Anim. (NY) 46, 136–141 (2017).

  19. 19.

    Carter, G. W., Hays, M., Sherman, A. & Galitski, T. PLoS Genet. 8, e1003010 (2012).

  20. 20.

    Phelan, J. P. & Austad, S. N. J. Gerontol. 49, B1–B11 (1994).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (FRN154281), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2018-03873), and the Louise and Alan Edwards Foundation (all to J.S.M.).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. UNC Neuroscience Centre, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

    • Alexander H. Tuttle
  2. The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME, USA

    • Vivek M. Philip
    •  & Elissa J. Chesler
  3. Alan Edwards Centre for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    • Jeffrey S. Mogil

Authors

  1. Search for Alexander H. Tuttle in:

  2. Search for Vivek M. Philip in:

  3. Search for Elissa J. Chesler in:

  4. Search for Jeffrey S. Mogil in:

Contributions

The study was conceived by J.S.M., designed by A.H.T. and J.S.M., carried out by A.H.T., and analyzed by V.M.P. and E.J.C.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey S. Mogil.

Integrated supplementary information

  1. Supplementary Figure 1

    PRISMA diagram.

Supplementary Information

  1. Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 2

  2. Reporting Summary

  3. Supplementary Table 1

    Data from papers simultaneously testing inbred and outbred mouse strains.

  4. Supplementary Table 3

    DO versus inbred CVs.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0224-7

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing