Cited by 795Animal Behavior and Welfare StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchAnimal testing and alternatives

Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment

Rogers, Derek C., Fisher, E.M.C., Brown, S.D.M., Peters, J., Hunter, A.J., Martin, J.E.·1997·Mammalian Genome

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s003359900551

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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