ArticlePloS one2023
How stra(i)nge are your controls? A comparative analysis of metabolic phenotypes in commonly used C57BL/6 substrains.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Validation of a refined protocol for mouse oral glucose tolerance testing without gavage.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, insufficiently characterised controls have been a contributing factor to irreproducibility in biomedical research including neuroscience and metabolism. There is now a growing awareness of phenotypic differences between the C57BL/6 substrains which are commonly used as control animals. We here investigated baseline metabolic characteristics such as glucose regulation, fasted serum insulin levels and hepatic insulin signalling in five different C57BL/6 substrains (N, J, JOla, JRcc) of both sexes, obtained from two commercial vendors, Charles River Laboratories (Crl) and Envigo (Env). Our results indicate systematic and tissue-specific differences between substrains, affected by both vendor and sex, in all parameters investigated, and not necessarily mediated by the presence of the NntC57BL/6J mutation. Not only were there differences between 6J and 6N as expected, all three 6J substrains exhibited different profiles, even from the same breeder. Two distinct metabolic profiles were identified, one in which low insulin levels resulted in impaired glucose clearance (6JCrl; both sexes) and the other, where sustained elevations in fasted basal insulin levels led to glucose intolerance (male 6JRccEnv). Further, 6JRccEnv displayed sex differences in both glucose clearance and hepatic insulin signalling markers. In comparison, the two 6N substrains of either sex, irrespective of vendor, did not exhibit considerable differences, with 6NCrl animals presenting a good choice as a healthy baseline 'control' for many types of experiments. Overall, our data emphasise the importance of selecting and characterising control subjects regarding background, sex, and supplier to ensure proper experimental outcomes in biomedical research.
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.