The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genetic Differences among C57BL/6 Substrains
Open accessAbstract
The C57BL/6 mouse is the most well-known inbred mouse strain, and has been widely used as a genetic background for congenic and mutant mice. A number of C57BL/6 substrains have been derived from the C57BL/6 founder line and are reported to differ in several phenotypes. There are several major sources of C57BL/6 substrains for the biomedical research community. The importance of their genetic and phenotypic differences among substrains, however, has not yet been well recognized by biomedical researchers. Here, we report the result of screening of the functional deletion of the nicotinamide nucleotide transhydrogenase (Nnt) gene and 1,446 SNPs genotyping among seven C57BL/6 substrains from different sources, such as C57BL/6J, C57BL/6JJcl, C57BL/6JJmsSlc, C57BL/6NJcl, C57BL/6NCrlCrlj, C57BL/6NTac, and C57BL/6CrSlc. The deletion of exon 7-11 in the Nnt gene that was previously reported in C57BL/6J was also observed in other C57BL/6J substrains, indicating that this functional deletion probably occurred at an early stage in the establishment of C57BL/6J substrains. The genotyping of SNP loci clearly demonstrate genetic differences between C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N substrains at 11 loci. Besides, we found another SNP differing between C57BL/6J and other C57BL/6J substrains available from commercial breeders. No genetic difference was detected among C57BL/6N substrains. The C57BL/6CrSlc mouse, originally derived from the National Cancer Institute of the NIH was found to be the same as the C57BL/6N substrains by the SNP pattern. These data will be useful for accurate genetic monitoring of genetically engineered mice with the C57BL/6 background.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Initial sequencing and comparative analysis of the mouse genome
Mouse Genome Sequencing Consortium (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01262 · Cited by 7,187
Cited by
Animal models of obesity and diabetes mellitus
Kleinert, M., Clemmensen, C., Hofmann, S. M., Moore, M. C., Renner, S., Woods, S. C., Huypens, P., Beckers, J., de Angelis, M. H., Schürmann, A., et al. (2018) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/nrendo.2017.161 · Cited by 832
A comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strains
Simon, M. M., Greenaway, S., White, J. K., Fuchs, H., Gailus-Durner, V., Wells, S., Sorg, T., Wong, K., Bedu, E., Cartwright, E. J., et al. (2013) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-7-r82 · Cited by 507
High fat diet induced obesity model using four strains of mice: Kunming, C57BL/6, BALB/c and ICR
Li, J., Wu, H., Liu, Y., & Yang, L. (2020) · Experimental Animals · doi:10.1538/expanim.19-0148 · Cited by 266
Endogenous Enterobacteriaceae underlie variation in susceptibility to Salmonella infection
Velazquez, E. M., Nguyen, H., Heasley, K. T., Saechao, C. H., Gil, L. M., Rogers, A. W. L., Miller, B. M., Rolston, M. R., Lopez, C. A., Litvak, Y., et al. (2019) · Nature Microbiology · doi:10.1038/s41564-019-0407-8 · Cited by 201
Never waste a good crisis: confronting reproducibility in translational research
Drucker, D. J. (2016) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2016.08.006 · Cited by 117
Metadata
- Authors
- MEKADA, K., ABE, K., MURAKAMI, A., NAKAMURA, S., NAKATA, H., MORIWAKI, K., OBATA, Y., & YOSHIKI, A.
- Venue
- Experimental Animals
- Published
- 2009
- Volume
- 58
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 141-149
- ISSN
- 0007-5124 (ISSN-L)
- 1341-1357
- 1881-7122
- OpenAlex
- W2132701025
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Genetic Differences among C57BL/6 Substrains. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1538/expanim.58.141
- The paper
- MEKADA, K., ABE, K., MURAKAMI, A., NAKAMURA, S., NAKATA, H., MORIWAKI, K., OBATA, Y., & YOSHIKI, A. (2009). Genetic Differences among C57BL/6 Substrains. Experimental Animals. https://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.58.141
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.
