Behavioral differences among fourteen inbred mouse strains commonly used as disease models

被引:0
|
作者
Bothe, GWM
Bolivar, VJ
Vedder, MJ
Geistfeld, JG
机构
[1] Tacon Farms, Germantown, NY 12526 USA
[2] Wadsworth Ctr, Genom Inst, Troy, NY 12180 USA
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
S85 [动物医学(兽医学)];
学科分类号
0906 ;
摘要
We compared the behavior of 14 inbred mouse strains and an F1 hybrid commonly used in transgenic and knockout production. These strains were 129P3/J, 129S1/SvImJ, 12956/SvEvTac, 129T2/SvEmsJ, 129X1/SvJ (formerly 129/J, 129/Sv-p(+)Tyr(+)Kitl(+)/J, 129/SvEvTac, 129SvEmsJ, and 129/SvJ, respectively), A/JCrTac, BALB/cAnNTac, C3H/HeNTac, C57BL/6J, C57BL/6NTac, DBA/2NTac, FVB/NTac, NOD/MrkTac, SJIJJCrNTac, and the hybrid B6129S6FITac. Performance in three behavioral tests (rotorod, open-field activity-habituation, and contextual and cued fear conditioning) was determined. On the rotorod assay, SJIJJCrNTac mice had the shortest latencies to fall on the first day of testing, and DBA/2NTac mice showed impaired motor learning. Open-field behavior was analyzed using the parameters total distance, center distance, velocity, and vertical activity. 129T2/EvEmsJ and A/JCrTac were least active in the open field, whereas NOD/MrkTac mice were most active. Contrary to earlier studies, we found that all strains habituated to the open field in at least one of these parameters. In contextual and cued fear conditioning, all strains displayed activity suppression. However, FVB/NTac mice reacted less strongly to both context and cue than did most of the other strains. There were no significant behavioral differences between C57131/6J and C57BL/6NTac, except for higher open-field activity in C57BL/6J female mice. These findings illustrate the importance of the appropriate selection of background strain for transgenic, gene targeting, or drug research.
引用
收藏
页码:326 / 334
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Analysis of structural variation among inbred mouse strains
    Ahmed Arslan
    Zhuoqing Fang
    Meiyue Wang
    Yalun Tan
    Zhuanfen Cheng
    Xinyu Chen
    Yuan Guan
    Laura J. Pisani
    Boyoung Yoo
    Gill Bejerano
    Gary Peltz
    BMC Genomics, 24
  • [32] Analysis of structural variation among inbred mouse strains
    Arslan, Ahmed
    Fang, Zhuoqing
    Wang, Meiyue
    Tan, Yalun
    Cheng, Zhuanfen
    Chen, Xinyu
    Guan, Yuan
    J. Pisani, Laura
    Yoo, Boyoung
    Bejerano, Gill
    Peltz, Gary
    BMC GENOMICS, 2023, 24 (01)
  • [33] Sequence analysis of the complete mitochondrial DNA in 10 commonly used inbred rat strains
    Schlick, Nancy E.
    Jensen-Seaman, Michael I.
    Orlebeke, Kimberly
    Kwitek, Anne E.
    Jacob, Howard J.
    Lazar, Jozef
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-CELL PHYSIOLOGY, 2006, 291 (06): : C1183 - C1192
  • [34] DIFFERENCES IN REVERSAL LEARNING BETWEEN 2 INBRED MOUSE STRAINS
    ELIAS, MF
    PSYCHONOMIC SCIENCE, 1970, 20 (03): : 179 - 180
  • [35] Genetic variation in coding regions between and within commonly used inbred rat strains
    Smits, BMG
    van Zutphen, BFM
    Plasterk, RHA
    Cuppen, E
    GENOME RESEARCH, 2004, 14 (07) : 1285 - 1290
  • [36] DIFFERENCES IN THE RESPONSE OF INBRED MOUSE STRAINS TO THE FACTOR INCREASING MONOCYTOPOIESIS
    SLUITER, W
    ELZENGACLAASEN, I
    VANDERKLEYVANANDEL, AV
    VANFURTH, R
    JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 1984, 159 (02): : 524 - 536
  • [37] DIFFERENCES IN IMMUNE RESPONSE OF INBRED-MOUSE STRAINS TO ISOANTIGENS
    BOEHME, DH
    JOURNAL OF THE RETICULOENDOTHELIAL SOCIETY, 1967, 4 (05): : 438 - &
  • [38] DIFFERENCES IN ORAL ETHANOL REINFORCED BEHAVIOR IN INBRED MOUSE STRAINS
    GEORGE, FR
    ELMER, GI
    MEISCH, RA
    ALCOHOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH, 1986, 10 (01) : 112 - 112
  • [39] Digit ratio (2D:4D) and behavioral differences between inbred mouse strains
    Bailey, AA
    Wahlsten, D
    Hurd, PL
    GENES BRAIN AND BEHAVIOR, 2005, 4 (05) : 318 - 323
  • [40] BEHAVIORAL DIFFERENCES IN RECOMBINANT INBRED MOUSE STRAINS SELECTED FOR GENETICALLY-INFLUENCED VARIATION IN CORTEX AND THALAMUS VOLUME
    Dong, Hongxin
    Hicklin, N.
    Yuede, C.
    Taylor, T.
    Cheverud, J.
    Csernansky, J. G.
    SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN, 2009, 35 : 253 - 253