Cited by 279Animal Genetics and ReproductionImmunotoxicology and immune responsesAnimal testing and alternatives

Immunological Variation Between Inbred Laboratory Mouse Strains: Points to Consider in Phenotyping Genetically Immunomodified Mice

Sellers, R. S., Clifford, C. B., Treuting, P. M., Brayton, C.·2012·Veterinary Pathology

Abstract

Inbred laboratory mouse strains are highly divergent in their immune response patterns as a result of genetic mutations and polymorphisms. The generation of genetically engineered mice (GEM) has, in the past, used embryonic stem (ES) cells for gene targeting from various 129 substrains followed by backcrossing into more fecund mouse strains. Although common inbred mice are considered "immune competent," many have variations in their immune system-some of which have been described-that may affect the phenotype. Recognition of these immune variations among commonly used inbred mouse strains is essential for the accurate interpretation of expected phenotypes or those that may arise unexpectedly. In GEM developed to study specific components of the immune system, accurate evaluation of immune responses must take into consideration not only the gene of interest but also how the background strain and microbial milieu contribute to the manifestation of findings in these mice. This article discusses points to consider regarding immunological differences between the common inbred laboratory mouse strains, particularly in their use as background strains in GEM.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0300985811429314

Cites

184 of 184 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 185 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sellers, R. S., Clifford, C. B., Treuting, P. M., & Brayton, C.
Affiliations
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
  • Charles River Laboratories (United States) (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Sellers, R. S.
Venue
Veterinary Pathology
Published
2011-11-30
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
32-43
ISSN
  • 0300-9858 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-2217
OpenAlex
W2168284316
Cited by
278
References
185
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Veterinary Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Animal Genetics and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
Keywords
inbred mouse strains, genetic background, genetically modified mice, immune response, genetic polymorphism, mouse strain differences
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Genetic Engineering, Humans, Male, Mice, Inbred Strains, Mice, Transgenic, Mutation, Phenotype, Polymorphism, Genetic, Models, Animal, 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