Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment
Abstract
For an understanding of the aberrant biology seen in mouse mutations and identification of more subtle phenotype variation, there is a need for a full clinical and pathological characterization of the animals. Although there has been some use of sophisticated techniques, the majority of behavioral and functional analyses in mice have been qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. There is, however, no comprehensive routine screening and testing protocol designed to identify and characterize phenotype variation or disorders associated with the mouse genome. We have developed the SHIRPA procedure to characterize the phenotype of mice in three stages. The primary screen utilizes standard methods to provide a behavioral and functional profile by observational assessment. The secondary screen involves a comprehensive behavioral assessment battery and pathological analysis. These protocols provide the framework for a general phenotype assessment that is suitable for a wide range of applications, including the characterization of spontaneous and induced mutants, the analysis of transgenic and gene-targeted phenotypes, and the definition of variation between strains. The tertiary screening stage described is tailored to the assessment of existing or potential models of neurological disease, as well as the assessment of phenotypic variability that may be the result of unknown genetic influences. SHIRPA utilizes standardized protocols for behavioral and functional assessment that…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
A modified SHIRPA screen was used to analyze the general health of each animal pre- and post-infection, as previously described.
“A modified SHIRPA screen was used to analyze the general health of each animal pre- and post-infection (Rogers et al., 1997).”
From Arbovirus infection increases the risk for the development of neurodegenerative disease pathology in the murine model (2024) · cites this paper as Rogers et al., 1997
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 14 · Cited by 795
- Authors
- Rogers, D. C., Fisher, E. M. C., Brown, S. D. M., Peters, J., Hunter, A. J., & Martin, J. E.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell (GB)
- St Bartholomew's Hospital (GB)
- Venue
- Mammalian Genome
- Published
- 1997-10-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 711-713
- ISSN
- 0938-8990 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1777
- OpenAlex
- W2013666305
- Cited by
- 795
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 29
- FWCI
- 30.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Mammalian Genome (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Keywords
- behavioral phenotyping, mouse mutants, neurological disease models, transgenic mice, gene-targeted mice, strain differences, pathological examination
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Behavior, Animal, Genetics, Behavioral, Nervous System Diseases, Neural Pathways, Phenotype, Research Design, Genetic Variation, Genome, Mice
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