Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16035954›Full record

ReviewThe Biochemical journal2005

Mouse behavioural analysis in systems biology.

Peter Van Meer, Jacob Raber

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Biochemical journal, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. PostnataliScience · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Spontaneous and Induced Animal Models for Cancer Research.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter Van MeerDepartment of Behavioral Neuroscience, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon 97239, USA.
Jacob Raber
Oregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

Androgens and apoE4 induced cognitive impairmentsR01AG020904 · NIA · OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI RABER, JACOB · 2001 to 2005
$929k
NIA NIH HHS AG20904NIA NIH HHS R01 AG020904
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular techniques allowing in vivo modulation of gene expression have provided unique opportunities and challenges for behavioural studies aimed at understanding the function of particular genes or biological systems under physiological or pathological conditions. Although various animal models are available, the laboratory mouse (Mus musculus) has unique features and is therefore a preferred animal model. The mouse shares a remarkable genetic resemblance and aspects of behaviour with humans. In this review, first we describe common mouse models for behavioural analyses. As both genetic and environmental factors influence behavioural performance and need to be carefully evaluated in behavioural experiments, considerations for designing and interpretations of these experiments are subsequently discussed. Finally, common behavioural tests used to assess brain function are reviewed, and it is illustrated how behavioural tests are used to increase our understanding of the role of histaminergic neurotransmission in brain function.

Indexed as

AnimalsBehavior, AnimalCentral Nervous SystemHistamineMiceReceptors, HistamineHistamineReceptors, Histamine

Identifiers

PMID16035954
PMCPMC1180709
OpenAlexW2101917708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.