ArticleF1000Research2020
The effects of microchipping C57BL/6N mice on standard phenotyping tests.
Article in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated monitoring of respiratory rate as a novel humane endpoint: A refinement in mouse metastatic lung cancer models.PloS one · 2021Article
- The effects of microchipping C57BL/6N mice on standard phenotyping tests.F1000Research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The C57BL/6N inbred lines of mice are widely used in genetic research. They are particularly favoured in large scale studies such as the International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC), where C57BL/6N mice are genetically altered to generate a collection of null alleles (currently more than 8500 null alleles have been generated). In this project, mice carrying null alleles are subjected to a pipeline of broad-based phenotyping tests to produce wide ranging phenotyping data on each model. We have previously described the development of a Home Cage Analysis system that automatically tracks the activity of group housed mice from a microchip inserted in the groin. This platform allows assessment of multiple biologically relevant phenotypes over long periods of time without experimenter interference, and therefore is particularly suited for high through-put studies. To investigate the impact of microchips on other tests carried out in the IMPC pipeline, we inserted microchips in 12 male and 12 female C57BL/6Ntac mice at seven weeks of age. Starting at nine weeks of age these mice underwent standard phenotyping tests, concurrently with 20 unchipped C57BL/6Ntac mice (10 females, 10 males). Tissues from a subset of the microchipped mice (six males and six females), chosen at random, were also sent for histopathological examination at the end of the phenotyping pipeline. No significant impact of insertion of microchip was observed in any of the phenotyping tests apart from bone mineral density measurement at DEXA due to the nature of the microchip. We therefore recommend that the microchip be inserted during the DEXA procedure, after the measurement is taken but before the mouse has recovered from the anaesthetic. This would avoid multiple anaesthetic exposures and prevent the potential variability in DEXA analysis output.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.