Advertisement

Strategies for Behaviorally Phenotyping the Transgenic Mouse

  • Kenneth E. McCarsonEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2066)

Abstract

The techniques and protocols to modify the mouse genome described in this volume allow researchers to produce genetic models of a remarkable number and breadth of human disease. The generation of gene-modified mice offers profoundly powerful approaches for bringing known or purported human gene disruptions into mouse models, but the degree to which the resultant mutant mouse recapitulates the complex physiological and behavioral features of the human disease state is a key variable in the ultimate usefulness of the mouse model organism. Accordingly, the behavioral characterization of mice with novel targeted gene mutations is an important initial step in determining the potential impact of a novel mouse model. This chapter addresses strategies useful in the initial observations of the animal that assist in directing the choice of secondary tests to assess more detailed aspects of potentially disrupted behaviors that may be relevant to the disease being modeled. An initial standardized, comprehensive screen that assesses general health, reflexes, and sensorimotor functions is the first step in characterizing behavioral phenotype, and results often suggest areas where more complex complementary behavioral assays may reveal more detailed disruption of normal behavior. This sequential, standardized approach reduces variability between subjects; this chapter also addresses approaches to reducing experimental artifacts due to handling, test order, testing facility environment, and other sources. This brief overview of behavioral phenotyping approaches is intended to provide practical information to streamline initial characterization of new mouse models and maximize the usefulness of efforts to use these models to study human health and disease.

Key words

Behavior SHIRPA Screening Locomotion Sensory function Cognition Phenotype 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Michelle K. Winter for her expert behavioral core management and editorial assistance and the Rodent Behavior Facility of the Kansas Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research Center (HD090216) for the long-term funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Mogil JS, Sternberg WF, Kest B, Marek P, Liebeskind JC (1993) Sex differences in the antagonism of swim stress-induced analgesia: effects of gonadectomy and estrogen replacement. Pain 53(1):17–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenspan JD, Craft RM, LeResche L, Arendt-Nielsen L, Berkley KJ, Fillingim RB, Gold MS, Holdcroft A, Lautenbacher S, Mayer EA, Mogil JS, Murphy AZ, Traub RJ, Consensus Working Group of the Sex G, Pain SIGotI (2007) Studying sex and gender differences in pain and analgesia: a consensus report. Pain 132(Suppl 1):S26–S45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2007.10.014PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meziane H, Ouagazzal AM, Aubert L, Wietrzych M, Krezel W (2007) Estrous cycle effects on behavior of C57BL/6J and BALB/cByJ female mice: implications for phenotyping strategies. Genes Brain Behav 6(2):192–200.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2006.00249.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mogil JS, Chanda ML (2005) The case for the inclusion of female subjects in basic science studies of pain. Pain 117(1–2):1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.06.020PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawley JN (1999) Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice: experimental design and evaluation of general health, sensory functions, motor abilities, and specific behavioral tests. Brain Res 835(1):18–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castelhano-Carlos MJ, Sousa N, Ohl F, Baumans V (2010) Identification methods in newborn C57BL/6 mice: a developmental and behavioural evaluation. Lab Anim 44(2):88–103.  https://doi.org/10.1258/la.2009.009044PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Crawley JN (2003) Behavioral phenotyping of rodents. Comp Med 53(2):140–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Crawley JN (2008) Behavioral phenotyping strategies for mutant mice. Neuron 57(6):809–818.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crawley JN, Paylor R (1997) A proposed test battery and constellations of specific behavioral paradigms to investigate the behavioral phenotypes of transgenic and knockout mice. Horm Behav 31(3):197–211.  https://doi.org/10.1006/hbeh.1997.1382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McIlwain KL, Merriweather MY, Yuva-Paylor LA, Paylor R (2001) The use of behavioral test batteries: effects of training history. Physiol Behav 73(5):705–717PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks SP, Pask T, Jones L, Dunnett SB (2004) Behavioural profiles of inbred mouse strains used as transgenic backgrounds. I: motor tests. Genes Brain Behav 3(4):206–215.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2004.00072.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers DC, Fisher EM, Brown SD, Peters J, Hunter AJ, Martin JE (1997) Behavioral and functional analysis of mouse phenotype: SHIRPA, a proposed protocol for comprehensive phenotype assessment. Mamm Genome 8(10):711–713PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Irwin S (1968) Comprehensive observational assessment: Ia. A systematic, quantitative procedure for assessing the behavioral and physiologic state of the mouse. Psychopharmacologia 13(3):222–257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogers DC, Peters J, Martin JE, Ball S, Nicholson SJ, Witherden AS, Hafezparast M, Latcham J, Robinson TL, Quilter CA, Fisher EM (2001) SHIRPA, a protocol for behavioral assessment: validation for longitudinal study of neurological dysfunction in mice. Neurosci Lett 306(1–2):89–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lalonde R, Strazielle C (2001) Motor performance and regional brain metabolism of spontaneous murine mutations with cerebellar atrophy. Behav Brain Res 125(1–2):103–108PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stasi K, Mitsacos A, Triarhou LC, Kouvelas ED (1997) Cerebellar grafts partially reverse amino acid receptor changes observed in the cerebellum of mice with hereditary ataxia: quantitative autoradiographic studies. Cell Transplant 6(3):347–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rogers DC, Jones DN, Nelson PR, Jones CM, Quilter CA, Robinson TL, Hagan JJ (1999) Use of SHIRPA and discriminant analysis to characterise marked differences in the behavioural phenotype of six inbred mouse strains. Behav Brain Res 105(2):207–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Masuya H, Inoue M, Wada Y, Shimizu A, Nagano J, Kawai A, Inoue A, Kagami T, Hirayama T, Yamaga A, Kaneda H, Kobayashi K, Minowa O, Miura I, Gondo Y, Noda T, Wakana S, Shiroishi T (2005) Implementation of the modified-SHIRPA protocol for screening of dominant phenotypes in a large-scale ENU mutagenesis program. Mamm Genome 16(11):829–837.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-005-2430-8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oellrich A, Meehan TF, Parkinson H, Sarntivijai S, White JK, Karp NA (2016) Reporting phenotypes in mouse models when considering body size as a potential confounder. J Biomed Semantics 7:2.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13326-016-0050-8PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wills GD, Wesley AL, Moore FR, Sisemore DA (1983) Social interactions among rodent conspecifics: a review of experimental paradigms. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 7(3):315–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blanchard DC, Blanchard RJ (2003) What can animal aggression research tell us about human aggression? Horm Behav 44(3):171–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nadler JJ, Moy SS, Dold G, Trang D, Simmons N, Perez A, Young NB, Barbaro RP, Piven J, Magnuson TR, Crawley JN (2004) Automated apparatus for quantitation of social approach behaviors in mice. Genes Brain Behav 3(5):303–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2004.00071.xPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moy SS, Nadler JJ, Magnuson TR, Crawley JN (2006) Mouse models of autism spectrum disorders: the challenge for behavioral genetics. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet 142C(1):40–51.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.30081PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Blundell J, Blaiss CA, Etherton MR, Espinosa F, Tabuchi K, Walz C, Bolliger MF, Sudhof TC, Powell CM (2010) Neuroligin-1 deletion results in impaired spatial memory and increased repetitive behavior. J Neurosci 30(6):2115–2129.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4517-09.2010PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Page DT, Kuti OJ, Sur M (2009) Computerized assessment of social approach behavior in mouse. Front Behav Neurosci 3:48.  https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.08.048.2009PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cabib S, Pascucci T, Ventura R, Romano V, Puglisi-Allegra S (2003) The behavioral profile of severe mental retardation in a genetic mouse model of phenylketonuria. Behav Genet 33(3):301–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brigman JL, Graybeal C, Holmes A (2010) Predictably irrational: assaying cognitive inflexibility in mouse models of schizophrenia. Front Neurosci 4:13.  https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.01.013.2010PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silverman JL, Yang M, Lord C, Crawley JN (2010) Behavioural phenotyping assays for mouse models of autism. Nat Rev Neurosci 11(7):490–502.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2851PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hardisty-Hughes RE, Parker A, Brown SD (2010) A hearing and vestibular phenotyping pipeline to identify mouse mutants with hearing impairment. Nat Protoc 5(1):177–190.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2009.204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moretti P, Bouwknecht JA, Teague R, Paylor R, Zoghbi HY (2005) Abnormalities of social interactions and home-cage behavior in a mouse model of Rett syndrome. Hum Mol Genet 14(2):205–220.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddi016PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brennan TJ, Vandermeulen EP, Gebhart GF (1996) Characterization of a rat model of incisional pain. Pain 64(3):493–501PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Winter MK, McCarson KE (2005) G-protein activation by neurokinin-1 receptors is dynamically regulated during persistent nociception. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 315(1):214–221.  https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.105.089565PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McCarson KE, Ralya A, Reisman SA, Enna SJ (2005) Amitriptyline prevents thermal hyperalgesia and modifications in rat spinal cord GABA(B) receptor expression and function in an animal model of neuropathic pain. Biochem Pharmacol 71(1–2):196–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2005.10.026PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eddy NB, Leimbach D (1953) Synthetic analgesics. II. Dithienylbutenyl- and dithienylbutylamines. J Pharm Exp Therap 107(3):385–393Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yalcin I, Charlet A, Freund-Mercier MJ, Barrot M, Poisbeau P (2009) Differentiating thermal allodynia and hyperalgesia using dynamic hot and cold plate in rodents. J Pain 10(7):767–773.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2009.01.325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dewey WL, Snyder JW, Harris LS, Howes JF (1969) The effect of narcotics and narcotic antagonists on the tail-flick response in spinal mice. J Pharm Pharmacol 21(8):548–550PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dirig DM, Salami A, Rathbun ML, Ozaki GT, Yaksh TL (1997) Characterization of variables defining hindpaw withdrawal latency evoked by radiant thermal stimuli. J Neurosci Methods 76(2):183–191PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hargreaves K, Dubner R, Brown F, Flores C, Joris J (1988) A new and sensitive method for measuring thermal nociception in cutaneous hyperalgesia. Pain 32(1):77–88PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wheeler-Aceto H, Porreca F, Cowan A (1990) The rat paw formalin test: comparison of noxious agents. Pain 40:229–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dubuisson D, Dennis SG (1977) The formalin test: a quantitative study of the analgesic effects of morphine, meperidine, and brain stem stimulation in rats and cats. Pain 4(2):161–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Grusser C, Grusser-Cornehls U (1998) Improvement in motor performance of Weaver mutant mice following lesions of the cerebellum. Behav Brain Res 97(1–2):189–194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thifault S, Lalonde R, Sanon N, Hamet P (2001) Longitudinal analysis of motor activity and coordination, anxiety, and spatial learning in mice with altered blood pressure. Brain Res 910(1–2):99–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Drai D, Kafkafi N, Benjamini Y, Elmer G, Golani I (2001) Rats and mice share common ethologically relevant parameters of exploratory behavior. Behav Brain Res 125(1–2):133–140PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Crosland KA, Zarcone JR, Schroeder S, Zarcone T, Fowler S (2005) Use of an antecedent analysis and a force sensitive platform to compare stereotyped movements and motor tics. Am J Mental Retard 110(3):181–192.  https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110<181:UOAAAA>2.0.CO;2Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fowler SC, Birkestrand B, Chen R, Vorontsova E, Zarcone T (2003) Behavioral sensitization to amphetamine in rats: changes in the rhythm of head movements during focused stereotypies. Psychopharmacology 170(2):167–177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1528-5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fowler SC, Zarcone TJ, Levant B (2010) Methylphenidate attenuates rats’ preference for a novel spatial stimulus introduced into a familiar environment: assessment using a force-plate actometer. J Neurosci Methods 189(1):36–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2010.03.014PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    McKerchar TL, Zarcone TJ, Fowler SC (2006) Use of a force-plate actometer for detecting and quantifying vertical leaping induced by amphetamine in BALB/cJ mice, but not in C57BL/6J, DBA/2J, 129X1/SvJ, C3H/HeJ, and CD-1 mice. J Neurosci Methods 153(1):48–54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.10.002PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Smittkamp SE, Brown JW, Stanford JA (2008) Time-course and characterization of orolingual motor deficits in B6SJL-Tg(SOD1-G93A)1Gur/J mice. Neuroscience 151(2):613–621.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2007.10.017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fowler SC, Miller BR, Gaither TW, Johnson MA, Rebec GV (2009) Force-plate quantification of progressive behavioral deficits in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington’s disease. Behav Brain Res 202(1):130–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.03.022PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dunham NW, Miya TS (1957) A note on a simple apparatus for detecting neurological deficit in rats and mice. J Am Pharm Assoc Am Pharm Assoc 46(3):208–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Monville C, Torres EM, Dunnett SB (2006) Comparison of incremental and accelerating protocols of the rotarod test for the assessment of motor deficits in the 6-OHDA model. J Neurosci Methods 158(2):219–223.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.06.001PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Carter RJ, Lione LA, Humby T, Mangiarini L, Mahal A, Bates GP, Dunnett SB, Morton AJ (1999) Characterization of progressive motor deficits in mice transgenic for the human Huntington’s disease mutation. J Neurosci 19(8):3248–3257PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wallace JE, Krauter EE, Campbell BA (1980) Motor and reflexive behavior in the aging rat. J Gerontol 35(3):364–370PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kiernan BW, Garcion E, Ferguson J, Frost EE, Torres EM, Dunnett SB, Saga Y, Aizawa S, Faissner A, Kaur R, Franklin RJ, ffrench-Constant C (1999) Myelination and behaviour of tenascin-C null transgenic mice. Eur J Neurosci 11(9):3082–3092PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Russell KL, Kutchko KM, Fowler SC, Berman NE, Levant B (2011) Sensorimotor behavioral tests for use in a juvenile rat model of traumatic brain injury: assessment of sex differences. J Neurosci Methods 199(2):214–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2011.05.008PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Glynn D, Drew CJ, Reim K, Brose N, Morton AJ (2005) Profound ataxia in complexin I knockout mice masks a complex phenotype that includes exploratory and habituation deficits. Hum Mol Genet 14(16):2369–2385.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddi239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Lorivel T, Hilber P (2007) Motor effects of delta 9 THC in cerebellar Lurcher mutant mice. Behav Brain Res 181(2):248–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2007.04.011PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Heglund NC, Taylor CR, McMahon TA (1974) Scaling stride frequency and gait to animal size: mice to horses. Science 186(4169):1112–1113PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Clarke KA, Still J (2001) Development and consistency of gait in the mouse. Physiol Behav 73(1–2):159–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Basso DM, Beattie MS, Bresnahan JC (1995) A sensitive and reliable locomotor rating scale for open field testing in rats. J Neurotrauma 12(1):1–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Basso DM, Fisher LC, Anderson AJ, Jakeman LB, McTigue DM, Popovich PG (2006) Basso Mouse Scale for locomotion detects differences in recovery after spinal cord injury in five common mouse strains. J Neurotrauma 23(5):635–659.  https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2006.23.635PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hamers FP, Lankhorst AJ, van Laar TJ, Veldhuis WB, Gispen WH (2001) Automated quantitative gait analysis during overground locomotion in the rat: its application to spinal cord contusion and transection injuries. J Neurotrauma 18(2):187–201.  https://doi.org/10.1089/08977150150502613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Koopmans GC, Deumens R, Honig WM, Hamers FP, Steinbusch HW, Joosten EA (2005) The assessment of locomotor function in spinal cord injured rats: the importance of objective analysis of coordination. J Neurotrauma 22(2):214–225.  https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2005.22.214PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hamers FP, Koopmans GC, Joosten EA (2006) CatWalk-assisted gait analysis in the assessment of spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 23(3–4):537–548.  https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2006.23.537PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Jeong MA, Plunet W, Streijger F, Lee JH, Plemel JR, Park S, Lam CK, Liu J, Tetzlaff W (2011) Intermittent fasting improves functional recovery after rat thoracic contusion spinal cord injury. J Neurotrauma 28(3):479–492.  https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2010.1609PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Leblond H, L’Esperance M, Orsal D, Rossignol S (2003) Treadmill locomotion in the intact and spinal mouse. J Neurosci 23(36):11411–11419PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Myers SA, DeVries WH, Gruenthal MJ, Andres KR, Hagg T, Whittemore SR (2012) Sildenafil improves epicenter vascular perfusion but not hindlimb functional recovery after contusive spinal cord injury in mice. J Neurotrauma 29(3):528–538.  https://doi.org/10.1089/neu.2011.2036PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Morris R (1984) Developments of a water-maze procedure for studying spatial learning in the rat. J Neurosci Methods 11(1):47–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hodges H (1996) Maze procedures: the radial-arm and water maze compared. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 3(3–4):167–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    D’Hooge R, De Deyn PP (2001) Applications of the Morris water maze in the study of learning and memory. Brain Res Rev 36(1):60–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Morris RG, Garrud P, Rawlins JN, O’Keefe J (1982) Place navigation impaired in rats with hippocampal lesions. Nature 297(5868):681–683PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Morgan D (2009) Frontiers in neuroscience water maze tasks in mice: special reference to Alzheimer’s transgenic mice. In: Buccafusco JJ (ed) Methods of behavior analysis in neuroscience. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton (FL)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Valentinuzzi VS, Kolker DE, Vitaterna MH, Shimomura K, Whiteley A, Low-Zeddies S, Turek FW, Ferrari EA, Paylor R, Takahashi JS (1998) Automated measurement of mouse freezing behavior and its use for quantitative trait locus analysis of contextual fear conditioning in (BALB/cJ x C57BL/6J)F2 mice. Learn Mem 5(4–5):391–403PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Grillon C, Ameli R, Charney DS, Krystal J, Braff D (1992) Startle gating deficits occur across prepulse intensities in schizophrenic patients. Biol Psychiatry 32(10):939–943PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Perriol MP, Dujardin K, Derambure P, Marcq A, Bourriez JL, Laureau E, Pasquier F, Defebvre L, Destee A (2005) Disturbance of sensory filtering in dementia with Lewy bodies: comparison with Parkinson’s disease dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 76(1):106–108.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2003.035022PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Swerdlow NR, Paulsen J, Braff DL, Butters N, Geyer MA, Swenson MR (1995) Impaired prepulse inhibition of acoustic and tactile startle response in patients with Huntington’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 58(2):192–200PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Swerdlow NR, Geyer MA (1998) Using an animal model of deficient sensorimotor gating to study the pathophysiology and new treatments of schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 24(2):285–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Willott JF, Turner JG, Carlson S, Ding D, Seegers Bross L, Falls WA (1998) The BALB/c mouse as an animal model for progressive sensorineural hearing loss. Hear Res 115(1–2):162–174PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Van Raamsdonk JM, Pearson J, Slow EJ, Hossain SM, Leavitt BR, Hayden MR (2005) Cognitive dysfunction precedes neuropathology and motor abnormalities in the YAC128 mouse model of Huntington’s disease. J Neurosci 25(16):4169–4180.  https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.0590-05.2005PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bailey KR, Crawley JN (2009) Frontiers in neuroscience anxiety-related behaviors in mice. In: Buccafusco JJ (ed) Methods of behavior analysis in neuroscience. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton (FL)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Vermeer LM, Gregory E, Winter MK, McCarson KE, Berman NE (2015) Behavioral effects and mechanisms of migraine pathogenesis following estradiol exposure in a multibehavioral model of migraine in rat. Exp Neurol 263:8–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2014.09.011PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Geng Y, Byun N, Delpire E (2010) Behavioral analysis of Ste20 kinase SPAK knockout mice. Behav Brain Res 208(2):377–382.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Takahashi A, Nishi A, Ishii A, Shiroishi T, Koide T (2008) Systematic analysis of emotionality in consomic mouse strains established from C57BL/6J and wild-derived MSM/Ms. Genes Brain Behav 7(8):849–858.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2008.00419.xPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lister RG (1987) The use of a plus-maze to measure anxiety in the mouse. Psychopharmacology 92(2):180–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hogg S (1996) A review of the validity and variability of the elevated plus-maze as an animal model of anxiety. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 54(1):21–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lalonde R, Strazielle C (2008) Relations between open-field, elevated plus-maze, and emergence tests as displayed by C57/BL6J and BALB/c mice. J Neurosci Methods 171(1):48–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.02.003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Drummond GB, Paterson DJ, McGrath JC (2010) ARRIVE: new guidelines for reporting animal research. J Physiol 588(Pt 14):2517.  https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2010.192260PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gates H, Mallon AM, Brown SD (2011) High-throughput mouse phenotyping. Methods 53(4):394–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.12.017PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Fuchs H, Gailus-Durner V, Adler T, Aguilar-Pimentel JA, Becker L, Calzada-Wack J, Da Silva-Buttkus P, Neff F, Gotz A, Hans W, Holter SM, Horsch M, Kastenmuller G, Kemter E, Lengger C, Maier H, Matloka M, Moller G, Naton B, Prehn C, Puk O, Racz I, Rathkolb B, Romisch-Margl W, Rozman J, Wang-Sattler R, Schrewe A, Stoger C, Tost M, Adamski J, Aigner B, Beckers J, Behrendt H, Busch DH, Esposito I, Graw J, Illig T, Ivandic B, Klingenspor M, Klopstock T, Kremmer E, Mempel M, Neschen S, Ollert M, Schulz H, Suhre K, Wolf E, Wurst W, Zimmer A, Hrabe de Angelis M (2011) Mouse phenotyping. Methods 53(2):120–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2010.08.006PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Mandillo S, Tucci V, Holter SM, Meziane H, Banchaabouchi MA, Kallnik M, Lad HV, Nolan PM, Ouagazzal AM, Coghill EL, Gale K, Golini E, Jacquot S, Krezel W, Parker A, Riet F, Schneider I, Marazziti D, Auwerx J, Brown SD, Chambon P, Rosenthal N, Tocchini-Valentini G, Wurst W (2008) Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study. Physiol Genomics 34(3):243–255.  https://doi.org/10.1152/physiolgenomics.90207.2008PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Rosen B, Schick J, Wurst W (2015) Beyond knockouts: the International Knockout Mouse Consortium delivers modular and evolving tools for investigating mammalian genes. Mamm Genome 26(9–10):456–466.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-015-9598-3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Karp NA, Meehan TF, Morgan H, Mason JC, Blake A, Kurbatova N, Smedley D, Jacobsen J, Mott RF, Iyer V, Matthews P, Melvin DG, Wells S, Flenniken AM, Masuya H, Wakana S, White JK, Lloyd KC, Reynolds CL, Paylor R, West DB, Svenson KL, Chesler EJ, de Angelis MH, Tocchini-Valentini GP, Sorg T, Herault Y, Parkinson H, Mallon AM, Brown SD (2015) Applying the ARRIVE Guidelines to an In Vivo Database. PLoS Biol 13(5):e1002151.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002151PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Kurbatova N, Mason JC, Morgan H, Meehan TF, Karp NA (2015) PhenStat: a tool kit for standardized analysis of high throughput phenotypic data. PLoS One 10(7):e0131274.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131274PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutics, Kansas Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research CenterUniversity of Kansas Medical CenterKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations