Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29357507›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985)2018

Reinventing the wheel: comparison of two wheel cage styles for assessing mouse voluntary running activity.

T Seward, B D Harfmann, K A Esser, E A Schroder

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 84% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

T SewardDepartment of Physiology, University of Kentucky , Lexington, Kentucky.
B D HarfmannDepartment of Integrative Physiology and Health Science, Alma College, Alma, Michigan.
K A EsserDepartment of Physiology and Functional Genomics, University of Florida , Gainesville, Florida.
E A SchroderDepartment of Physiology, University of Kentucky , Lexington, Kentucky.
University of Kentucky · USAlma College · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

UF PASS: Regulation of exercise transducers: supplement for diverse studentsU01AG055137 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI ESSER, KARYN A · 2017 to 2023
$3.2M
Muscle clock disruption accelerates the onset and progression of neurodegenerationR01AR066082 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI ESSER, KARYN A · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR066082NIA NIH HHS U01 AG055137
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Voluntary wheel cage assessment of mouse activity is commonly employed in exercise and behavioral research. Currently, no standardization for wheel cages exists resulting in an inability to compare results among data from different laboratories. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the distance run or average speed data differ depending on the use of two commonly used commercially available wheel cage systems. Two different wheel cages with structurally similar but functionally different wheels (electromechanical switch vs. magnetic switch) were compared side-by-side to measure wheel running data differences. Other variables, including enrichment and cage location, were also tested to assess potential impacts on the running wheel data. We found that cages with the electromechanical switch had greater inherent wheel resistance and consistently led to greater running distance per day and higher average running speed. Mice rapidly, within 1-2 days, adapted their running behavior to the type of experimental switch used, suggesting these running differences are more behavioral than due to intrinsic musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or metabolic limits. The presence of enrichment or location of the cage had no detectable impact on voluntary wheel running. These results demonstrate that mice run differing amounts depending on the type of cage and switch mechanism used and thus investigators need to report wheel cage type/wheel resistance and use caution when interpreting distance/speed run across studies. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The results of this study highlight that mice will run different distances per day and average speed based on the inherent resistance present in the switch mechanism used to record data. Rapid changes in running behavior for the same mouse in the different cages demonstrate that a strong behavioral factor contributes to classic exercise outcomes in mice. Caution needs to be taken when interpreting mouse voluntary wheel running activity to include potential behavioral input and physiological parameters.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityAnimal ExperimentationAnimalsHousing, AnimalMaleMice, Inbred C57BLRandom Allocationenrichmentmicevoluntary wheel cages

Identifiers

PMID29357507
PMCPMC5972464
OpenAlexW2777870061

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.