CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 269Animal testing and alternativesGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Comparing phenotypic variation between inbred and outbred mice

Open access
Tuttle, Alexander H., Philip, Vivek M., Chesler, Elissa J., Mogil, Jeffrey S.·2018·Nature Methods
DOI 10.1038/s41592-018-0224-7PMC PMC6518396
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41592-018-0224-7

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Inbred laboratory mice raised in standardized conditions display high phenotypic trait variability and are prone to polyphenism.

    “Inbred laboratory mice raised in standardized conditions nevertheless keep displaying high phenotypic trait variability (Gartner, 1990; Tuttle et al, 2018) and are prone to polyphenism, that is, several discrete phenotypes on the same genetic background (Dalgaard et al, 2016; Yang et al, 2022).”

    From An extended transcription factor regulatory network controls hepatocyte identity (2023) · cites this paper as Tuttle et al, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 20 · Cited by 269

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. [1]Taylor K, Gordon N, Langley G & Higgins W Altern. Lab Anim 36, 327– 342 (2008). 18662096
  2. [2]Festing MFW ILAR J. 55, 399– 404 (2014). 25541542
  3. [3]Biggers JD & Claringbold PJ Nature 174, 596– 597 (1954). 13203582
  4. [4]Jensen VS, Porsgaard T, Lykkesfeldt J & Hvid H Am. J. Transl. Res 8, 3574– 3584 (2016). 27648148 PMC5009410
  5. [5]Festing MFW Toxicol. Pathol 38, 681– 690 (2010). 20562325
  6. [6]Festing MFW Neurobiol. Aging 20, 237– 244 (1999). 10537033
  7. [7]Chia R, Achilli F, Festing MFW & Fisher EMC Nat. Genet 37, 1181– 1186 (2005). 16254564
  8. [8]Murray SA PLoS One 5, e12418 (2010). 20811634 PMC2928290
  9. [9]Tanaka T Reprod. Toxicol 12, 613– 617 (1998). 9875696
  10. [10]Chalfin L Nat. Commun 5, 4569 (2014). 25090970
  11. [11]Fonio E, Golani I & Benjamini Y Nat. Meth 9, 1167– 1170 (2012). 23223171
  12. [12]Dohm MR, Richardson CS & Garland T Jr. Am. J. Physiol 267, R1098– R1108 (1994). 7943421
  13. [14]Tuttle AH Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 114, 5515– 5520 (2017). 28484016 PMC5448193
  14. [15]Miller RA Neurobiol. Aging 20, 217– 231 (1999). 10537031
  15. [16]Prendergast BJ, Onishi KG & Zucker I Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev 40, 1– 5 (2014). 24456941
  16. [17]Logan RW Genes Brain Behav. 12, 424– 437 (2013). 23433259 PMC3709837
  17. [18]Mogil JS Lab Anim. 46, 136– 141 (2017). 28328894
  18. [19]Carter GW, Hays M, Sherman A & Galitski T PLoS Genet. 8, e1003010 (2012). 23071457 PMC3469415
  19. [20]Phelan JP & Austad SN J. Gerontol 49, B1– B11 (1994). 8282970

Authors
Tuttle, A. H., Philip, V. M., Chesler, E. J., & Mogil, J. S.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Jackson Laboratory (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Mogil, Jeffrey S.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Methods
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-11-30
Volume
15
Issue
12
Pages
994-996
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
DOI
10.1038/s41592-018-0224-7
PMC
PMC6518396
OpenAlex
W2901694253
Cited by
269
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 23 · 2013: 1
FWCI
36.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • The Mouseion at the JAXlibrary (Jackson Laboratory) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA037927, P50DA039841)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
inbred mouse strains, outbred mice, phenotypic variability, trait stability, coefficient of variation, mouse strain selection, biomedical research models
MeSH terms
Biological Variation, Population, Animals, Mice, Inbred Strains, Mice, Mutant Strains, Genetic Variation, 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