ArticleLaboratory animal research2024
Refined protocol for newly onset identification in non-obese diabetic mice: an animal-friendly, cost-effective, and efficient alternative.
Article in Laboratory animal research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- A streamlined approach for gene editing in non-obese diabetes (NOD) mice via CRISPR/Cas9.Laboratory animal research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapeutic interventions for diabetes are most effective when administered in the newly onset phase, yet determining the exact onset moment can be elusive in practice. Spontaneous autoimmune diabetes among NOD mice appears randomly between 12 and 32 weeks of age with an incidence range from 60 to 90%. Furthermore, the disease often progresses rapidly to severe diabetes within days, resulting in a very short window of newly onset phase, that poses significant challenge in early diagnosis. Conventionally, extensive blood glucose (BG) testing is typically required on large cohorts throughout several months to conduct prospective survey. We incorporated ultrasensitive urine glucose (UG) testing into an ordinary BG survey process, initially aiming to elucidate the lag period required for excessive glucose leaking from blood to urine during diabetes progression in the mouse model.
resultsThe observations unexpectedly revealed that small amounts of glucose detected in the urine often coincide with, sometimes even a couple days prior than elevated BG is diagnosed. Accordingly, we conducted the UG-based survey protocol in another cohort that was validated to accurately identified every individual near onset, who could then be confirmed by following few BG tests to fulfill the consecutive BG + criteria. This approach required fewer than 95 BG tests, compared to over 700 tests with traditional BG survey, to diagnose all the 37-38 diabetic mice out of total 60. The average BG level at diagnosis was slightly below 350 mg/dl, lower than the approximately 400 mg/dl observed with conventional BG monitoring.
conclusionsWe demonstrated a near perfect correlation between BG + and ultrasensitive UG + results in prospective survey with no lag period detected under twice weekly of testing frequency. This led to the refined protocol based on surveying with noninvasive UG testing, allowing for the early identification of newly onset diabetic mice with only a few BG tests required per mouse. This protocol significantly reduces the need for extensive blood sampling, lancet usage, labor, and animal distress, aligning with the 3Rs principle. It presents a convenient, accurate, and animal-friendly alternative for early diabetes diagnosis, facilitating research on diagnosis, pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment.
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.