Commentary: Mouse Genetic Nomenclature: Standardization of Strain, Gene, and Protein Symbols
Open accessAbstract
The use of standard nomenclatures for describing the strains, genes, and proteins of species is vital for the interpretation, archiving, analysis, and recovery of experimental data on the laboratory mouse. At a time when sharing of data and meta-analysis of experimental results is becoming a dominant mode of scientific investigation, failure to respect formal nomenclatures can cause confusion and errors and, in some cases, contribute to poor science. Here, the authors present the basic nomenclature rules for laboratory mice and explain how these rules should be applied to complex genetic manipulations and crosses.
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
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.
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?
Reporting the correct nomenclature is crucial to understanding the data and ensuring that the research is discoverable and replicable.
“Reporting the correct nomenclature is crucial to understanding the data and ensuring that the research is discoverable and replicable [116–118].”
From Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0 (2020) · cites this paper as [117]
The Abstract says standard nomenclature is vital for interpreting and recovering mouse experimental data, and the Conclusions link it to searching and retrieving archived data. The Mutant Gene Symbols section says correct annotation allows studies to be compared accurately. These passages support understanding and discoverability, but do not establish that correct nomenclature ensures research is replicable. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Smith, C. L., Goldsmith, C.-A. W., & Eppig, J. T. (2004) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2004-6-1-r7 · Cited by 417 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- [1]Bard J Ontologies: formalising biological knowledge for bioinformatics BioEssays 2003 25 501 506 12717820
- [2]Bard JB Rhee SY Ontologies in biology: design, applications and future challenges Nat Rev Genet 2004 5 213 222 14970823
- [3]Bodenreider O The Unified Medical Language System (UMLS): integrating biomedical terminology Nucleic Acids Res 2004 32 D267 D270 14681409 PMC308795
- [4]Chesler EJ Miller DR Branstetter LR Galloway LD Jackson BL Philip VM Voy BH Culiat CT Threadgill DW Williams RW Churchill GA Johnson DK Manly KF The Collaborative Cross at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: developing a powerful resource for systems genetics Mamm Genome 2008 19 382 389 18716833 PMC2745091
- [5]Kogan SC Ward JM Anver MR Berman JJ Brayton C Cardiff RD Carter JS deCoronado S Downing JR Fredrickson TN Haines DC Harris AW Harris NL Hiai H Jaffe ES MacLennan IC Pandolfi PP Pattengale PK Perkins AS Simpson RM Tuttle MS Wong JF Morse HC Bethesda proposals for classification of nonlymphoid hematopoietic neoplasms in mice Blood 2002 100 238 245 12070033
- [6]Markel P Shu P Ebeling C Carlson GA Nagle DL Smutko JS Moore KJ Theoretical and empirical issues for marker-assisted breeding of congenic mouse strains Nat Genet 1997 17 280 284 9354790
- [7]Meador VP Tyler RD Plunkett ML Epicardial and corneal mineralization in clinically normal severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice Vet Pathol 1992 29 247 249 1621336
- [8]Osborne JD Flatow J Holko M Lin SM Kibbe WA Zhu LJ Danila MI Feng G Chisholm RL Annotating the human genome with Disease Ontology BMC Genomics 2009 10 Suppl 1 S6 19594883 PMC2709267
- [9]Robinson PN Kohler S Bauer S Seelow D Horn D Mundlos S The Human Phenotype Ontology: a tool for annotating and analyzing human hereditary disease Am J Hum Genet 2008 83 610 615 18950739 PMC2668030
- [11]Snell GD Biology of the Laboratory Mouse 1941 1st ed. New York McGraw-Hill
- [12]Sundberg BA Schofield PN Gruenberger M Sundberg JP A data capture tool for mouse pathology phenotyping Vet Pathol 2009 46 1230 1240 19605915 PMC2879151
- [13]Sundberg JP Ichiki T Genetically engineered mice handbook 2005 Boca Raton CRC Press 314
- [14]Sundberg JP Sundberg BA Schofield PN Integrating mouse anatomy and pathology ontologies into a diagnostic/phenotyping database: tools for record keeping and teaching Mammalian Genome 2008 19 413 419 18797968 PMC2844541
- [15]Vahle J Bradley A Harada T Herbert R Kaufmann W Kellner R Mann P Pyrah I Rittinghausen S Tanaka T The international nomenclature project: an update Toxicol Pathol 2009 37 694 697 19638442
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0
Percie du Sert, N., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., Emerson, M., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411 · Cited by 2,677 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sundberg, J. P., & Schofield, P. N.
- Affiliations
- Jackson Laboratory (US)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sundberg, J. P.
- Venue
- Veterinary Pathology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-08-04
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1100-1104
- ISSN
- 0300-9858 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-2217
- PMC
- PMC3039125
- OpenAlex
- W2170096831
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Veterinary Pathology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R13OD010920)
- National Institute on Aging (P30AG038070)
- National Cancer Institute (CA089713, R01CA089713)
- National Center for Research Resources (RR17436, U13RR017436, R13RR017436)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Animal Genetics and Reproduction
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Keywords
- mouse strains, gene nomenclature, genetic engineering, nomenclatural rules, data sharing
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Genes, Mice, Inbred Strains, Mice, Mutant Strains, Terminology as Topic, Proteins, Symbolism, 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
