The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The diversity outbred mouse population
Open accessAbstract
The Diversity Outbred (DO) population is a heterogeneous stock derived from the same eight founder strains as the Collaborative Cross (CC) inbred strains. Genetically heterogeneous DO mice display a broad range of phenotypes. Natural levels of heterozygosity provide genetic buffering and, as a result, DO mice are robust and breed well. Genetic mapping analysis in the DO presents new challenges and opportunities. Specialized algorithms are required to reconstruct haplotypes from high-density SNP array data. The eight founder haplotypes can be combined into 36 possible diplotypes, which must be accommodated in QTL mapping analysis. Population structure of the DO must be taken into account here. Estimated allele effects of eight founder haplotypes provide information that is not available in two-parent crosses and can dramatically reduce the number of candidate loci. Allele effects can also distinguish chance colocation of QTL from pleiotropy, which provides a basis for establishing causality in expression QTL studies. We recommended sample sizes of 200–800 mice for QTL mapping studies, larger than for traditional crosses. The CC inbred strains provide a resource for independent validation of DO mapping results. Genetic heterogeneity of the DO can provide a powerful advantage in our ability to generalize conclusions to other genetically diverse populations. Genetic diversity can also help to avoid the pitfall of identifying an idiosyncratic reaction that occurs only in a limited genetic context. Informatics tools and data resources associated with the CC, the DO, and their founder strains are developing rapidly. We anticipate a flood of new results to follow as our community begins to adopt and utilize these new genetic resource populations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mouse genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation.
Keane, T. M., Goodstadt, L., Danecek, P., White, M. A., Wong, K., Yalcin, B., Heger, A., Agam, A., Slater, G., Goodson, M., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10413 · Cited by 1,580
Cited by
Diet dominates host genotype in shaping the murine gut microbiota
Carmody, R. N., Gerber, G. K., Luevano, J. M., Gatti, D. M., Somes, L., Svenson, K. L., & Turnbaugh, P. J. (2015) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2014.11.010 · Cited by 1,103
Self-citationSystems genetics approaches to understand complex traits
Civelek, M., & Lusis, A. J. (2014) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3575 · Cited by 621
Defining the consequences of genetic variation on a proteome-wide scale
Chick, J. M., Munger, S. C., Simecek, P., Huttlin, E. L., Choi, K., Gatti, D. M., Raghupathy, N., Svenson, K. L., Churchill, G. A., & Gygi, S. P. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature18270 · Cited by 361
Self-citationPreclinical mouse solid tumour models: status quo, challenges and perspectives
Gengenbacher, N., Singhal, M., & Augustin, H. G. (2017) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2017.92 · Cited by 332
Lilue, J., Doran, A. G., Fiddes, I. T., Abrudan, M., Armstrong, J., Bennett, R., Chow, W., Collins, J., Collins, S., Czechanski, A., et al. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0223-8 · Cited by 267
Mouse Genome Database (MGD)-2018: knowledgebase for the laboratory mouse
Smith, C. L., Blake, J. A., Kadin, J. A., Richardson, J. E., Bult, C. J., & the Mouse Genome Database Group (2018) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkx1006 · Cited by 219
The Mouse Universal Genotyping Array: From Substrains to Subspecies
Morgan, A. P., Fu, C.-P., Kao, C.-Y., Welsh, C. E., Didion, J. P., Yadgary, L., Hyacinth, L., Ferris, M. T., Bell, T. A., Miller, D. R., et al. (2016) · G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics · doi:10.1534/g3.115.022087 · Cited by 214
Self-citationThe role of mouse strain differences in the susceptibility to fibrosis: a systematic review
Walkin, L., Herrick, S. E., Summers, A., Brenchley, P. E., Hoff, C. M., Korstanje, R., & Margetts, P. J. (2013) · Fibrogenesis & Tissue Repair · doi:10.1186/1755-1536-6-18 · Cited by 160
Toward more predictive genetic mouse models of Alzheimer’s disease
Onos, K. D., Sukoff Rizzo, S. J., Howell, G. R., & Sasner, M. (2016) · Brain Research Bulletin · doi:10.1016/j.brainresbull.2015.12.003 · Cited by 156
Genetic determinants of gut microbiota composition and bile acid profiles in mice
Kemis, J. H., Linke, V., Barrett, K. L., Boehm, F. J., Traeger, L. L., Keller, M. P., Rabaglia, M. E., Schueler, K. L., Stapleton, D. S., Gatti, D. M., et al. (2019) · PLOS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008073 · Cited by 136
Self-citationMouse models of ageing and their relevance to disease
Kõks, S., Dogan, S., Tuna, B. G., González-Navarro, H., Potter, P., & Vandenbroucke, R. E. (2016) · Mechanisms of Ageing and Development · doi:10.1016/j.mad.2016.10.001 · Cited by 125
Munger, S. C., Raghupathy, N., Choi, K., Simons, A. K., Gatti, D. M., Hinerfeld, D. A., Svenson, K. L., Keller, M. P., Attie, A. D., Hibbs, M. A., et al. (2014) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.114.165886 · Cited by 85
Self-citationTranslational approaches to understanding resilience to Alzheimer’s disease
Neuner, S. M., Telpoukhovskaia, M., Menon, V., O’Connell, K. M. S., Hohman, T. J., & Kaczorowski, C. C. (2022) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2022.02.005 · Cited by 68
“To specifically use GRPs (Box 3) to identify resilience factors, a new F1 mouse population was generated by introducing the well-established 5XFAD transgene into almost 30 BXD strains [56].”
BackgroundInfluentialSmallwood, T. L., Gatti, D. M., Quizon, P., Weinstock, G. M., Jung, K.-C., Zhao, L., Hua, K., Pomp, D., & Bennett, B. J. (2014) · G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics · doi:10.1534/g3.114.014704 · Cited by 54
Self-citationZhang, Q., Linke, V., Overmyer, K. A., Traeger, L. L., Kasahara, K., Miller, I. J., Manson, D. E., Polaske, T. J., Kerby, R. L., Kemis, J. H., et al. (2023) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-023-01326-w · Cited by 43
Self-citationGenome-wide association for testis weight in the diversity outbred mouse population
Yuan, J. T., Gatti, D. M., Philip, V. M., Kasparek, S., Kreuzman, A. M., Mansky, B., Sharif, K., Taterra, D., Taylor, W. M., Thomas, M., et al. (2018) · Mammalian Genome · doi:10.1007/s00335-018-9745-8 · Cited by 15
Self-citationYang, C., Wang, Y., Xu, W., Liu, Z., Zhou, S., Zhang, M., & Cui, D. (2019) · Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2018.12.011 · Cited by 9
Network analysis identifies strain-dependent response to tau and tau seeding-associated genes
Acri, D. J., You, Y., Tate, M. D., Karahan, H., Martinez, P., McCord, B., Sharify, A. D., John, S., Kim, B., Dabin, L. C., et al. (2023) · Journal of Experimental Medicine · doi:10.1084/jem.20230180 · Cited by 3
“The founder strains of the Jackson Laboratory ’ s multiparent panels, the Diversity Outbred and Collaborative Cross mice, include five classically inbred and three wild-derived mouse strains (Churchill et al., 2012).”
Helmy, M., Li, J. U., Yan, X. F., Meade, R. K., Anderson, E., Chen, P. B., Czechanski, A. M., Di Domenico, T., Flint, J., Garrison, E., et al. (2026) · Cell Genomics · doi:10.1016/j.xgen.2025.101074 · Cited by 2
Philtjens, S., Acri, D. J., Kim, B., Kim, H., & Kim, J. (2021) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-171899/v1 · Cited by 1
“To overcome the lack of genetic diversity in mouse models, the Diversity Outbred (DO) mouse model was established through a multiparent paradigm from eight founder strains, comprising ve inbred and three wild-derived strains [10, 11].”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Churchill, G. A., Gatti, D. M., Munger, S. C., & Svenson, K. L.
- Venue
- Mammalian Genome
- Published
- 2012-08-15
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 9-10
- Pages
- 713-718
- ISSN
- 0938-8990 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1777
- OpenAlex
- W2059073891
- Cited by
- 458
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
