The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Minimum information about animal experiments: supplier is also important
Abstract
It has now been established that functional recovery after spinal cord injury (SCI) depends on several parameters, including animal strain. Here we demonstrate that rats from the same strain (Wistar) but from two independent commercial suppliers present different motor, sensory, and autonomic outcomes after a standard model of SCI, the so‐called compression model. Recovery is correlated with the extension of the lesion, and we show that the vertebral canal diameter varies between the two suppliers. To substantiate this point, we carried out another set of experiments, with the so‐called contusion model, which requires bone ablation and thus whose extension is not related to vertebral canal diameter. We show that there is no difference between the two suppliers. The purpose of our communication is to alert researchers on how crucial it is to control experimental parameters as closely as possible and to establish a standard for animal experiment in order to avoid unexpected biases. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In spinal cord injury, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior.
“In spinal cord injury, for example, drug testing results vary according to which species and even which strain within a species is used, because of numerous interspecies and interstrain differences in neurophysiology, anatomy, and behavior.42”
From The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation (2015) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 16 · Cited by 17
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05725.x · DOI
- 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1103-06.2006 · DOI
- 10.1089/08977150252806965 · DOI
- 10.1089/neu.2000.17.299 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.expneurol.2007.04.014 · DOI
- 10.1076/ceyr.25.4.215.13483 · DOI
- 10.1037/0735-7044.120.4.826 · DOI
- 10.1002/jnr.490320409 · DOI
- 10.1089/089771501316919111 · DOI
- 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9861(19970120)377:3<443::AID-CNE10>3.0.CO;2-S · DOI
- 10.1016/j.spinee.2005.05.379 · DOI
- 10.1089/neu.2006.0252 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0304-3940(97)00731-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0304-3940(97)00923-3 · DOI
- 10.1002/cne.10736 · DOI
- 10.1089/08977150152725687 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Lonjon, N., Prieto, M., Haton, H., Brøchner, C. B., Bauchet, L., Costalat, V., Privat, A., Gaviria, M., & Perrin, F. E.
- Affiliations
- Inserm (FR)
- Hôpital Gui de Chauliac (FR)
- Institute for Neurosciences of Montpellier (FR)
- Corresponding author
- Perrin, Florence E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Research
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-09-16
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 403-407
- ISSN
- 0360-4012 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4547
- OpenAlex
- W2158851874
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Spinal Cord Injury Research
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
- Keywords
- spinal cord injury, animal strains, Wistar rats, lesion expansion, compression model, motor recovery, sensory recovery, autonomic recovery, experimental bias
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Spinal Cord Injuries, Rats, Wistar, Recovery of Function, Animal Experimentation, Biomedical Research, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
