Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23314661›Full record

ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2013

The case for genetic monitoring of mice and rats used in biomedical research.

James R Fahey, Hideki Katoh, Rachel Malcolm, Ana V Perez

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

James R FaheyLaboratory Animal Health Services Department, The Jackson Laboratory, Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA. jim.fahey@jax.org
Hideki Katoh
Rachel Malcolm
Ana V Perez

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, there is the potential to generate over 200,000 mutant mouse strains between existing mouse strains (over 24,000) and genetically modified mouse embryonic stem cells (over 209,000) that have been entered into the International Mouse Strain Resource Center (IMSR) from laboratories and repositories all over the world. The number of rat strains is also increasing exponentially. These mouse and rat mutants are a tremendous genetic resource; however, the awareness of their genetic integrity such as genetic background and genotyping of these models is not always carefully monitored. In this review, we make a case for the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS), which is interested in promoting and helping academic institutions develop a genetic monitoring program to bring a level of genetic quality assurance into the scientific interchange and use of mouse and rat genetically mutant models.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomedical ResearchBreedingGenotypeLaboratory Animal ScienceMiceMice, Inbred StrainsMutationQuality ControlRatsRats, Inbred Strains

Identifiers

PMID23314661
PMCPMC3627018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.