Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27648148›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2016

Rodent model choice has major impact on variability of standard preclinical readouts associated with diabetes and obesity research.

Victoria S Jensen, Trine Porsgaard, Jens Lykkesfeldt, Henning Hvid

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of translational research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advancing mouse models for transplantation research.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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.

Victoria S JensenDepartment of Veterinary Disease Biology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of CopenhagenDenmark; Insulin Pharmacology, Novo Nordisk A/SMåløv, Denmark.
Trine PorsgaardInsulin Pharmacology, Novo Nordisk A/S Måløv, Denmark.
Jens LykkesfeldtDepartment of Veterinary Disease Biology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen Denmark.
Henning HvidInsulin Pharmacology, Novo Nordisk A/S Måløv, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

coefficient of variationdiabetes and obesity researchinbredoutbredPhenotypic variability

Identifiers

PMID27648148
PMCPMC5009410

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.