Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study

Open access
Mandillo, Silvia, Tucci, Valter, Hölter, Sabine M., Meziane, Hamid, Banchaabouchi, Mumna Al, Kallnik, Magdalena, Lad, Heena V., Nolan, Patrick M., Ouagazzal, Abdel-Mouttalib, Coghill, Emma L., Gale, Karin, Golini, Elisabetta, Jacquot, Sylvie, Krezel, Wojtek, Parker, Andy, Riet, Fabrice, Schneider, Ilka, Marazziti, Daniela, Auwerx, Johan, Brown, Steve D. M., Chambon, Pierre, Rosenthal, Nadia, Tocchini-Valentini, Glauco, Wurst, Wolfgang·2008·Physiological Genomics

Abstract

Establishing standard operating procedures (SOPs) as tools for the analysis of behavioral phenotypes is fundamental to mouse functional genomics. It is essential that the tests designed provide reliable measures of the process under investigation but most importantly that these are reproducible across both time and laboratories. For this reason, we devised and tested a set of SOPs to investigate mouse behavior. Five research centers were involved across France, Germany, Italy, and the UK in this study, as part of the EUMORPHIA program. All the procedures underwent a cross-validation experimental study to investigate the robustness of the designed protocols. Four inbred reference strains (C57BL/6J, C3HeB/FeJ, BALB/cByJ, 129S2/SvPas), reflecting their use as common background strains in mutagenesis programs, were analyzed to validate these tests. We demonstrate that the operating procedures employed, which includes open field, SHIRPA, grip-strength, rotarod, Y-maze, prepulse inhibition of acoustic startle response, and tail flick tests, generated reproducible results between laboratories for a number of the test output parameters. However, we also identified several uncontrolled variables that constitute confounding factors in behavioral phenotyping. The EUMORPHIA SOPs described here are an important start-point for the ongoing development of increasingly robust phenotyping platforms and their application in large-scale, multicentre mouse phenotyping programs.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/physiolgenomics.90207.2008

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 282

Metadata

Authors
Mandillo, S., Tucci, V., Hölter, S. M., Meziane, H., Banchaabouchi, M. A., Kallnik, M., Lad, H. V., Nolan, P. M., Ouagazzal, A.-M., Coghill, E. L., Gale, K., Golini, E., Jacquot, S., Krezel, W., Parker, A., Riet, F., Schneider, I., Marazziti, D., Auwerx, J., Brown, S. D. M., Chambon, P., Rosenthal, N., Tocchini-Valentini, G., & Wurst, W.
Venue
Physiological Genomics
Published
2008-08
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
243-255
ISSN
  • 1094-8341 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-2267
OpenAlex
W2145913238
Cited by
282
References
5
FWCI
21.02
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/physiolgenomics.90207.2008
The paper
Mandillo, S., Tucci, V., Hölter, S. M., Meziane, H., Banchaabouchi, M. A., Kallnik, M., Lad, H. V., Nolan, P. M., Ouagazzal, A.-M., Coghill, E. L., Gale, K., Golini, E., Jacquot, S., Krezel, W., Parker, A., Riet, F., Schneider, I., Marazziti, D., Auwerx, J., . . . Wurst, W. (2008). Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study. Physiological Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1152/physiolgenomics.90207.2008

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.