Literature DB >> 25541542

Evidence should trump intuition by preferring inbred strains to outbred stocks in preclinical research.

Michael F W Festing.   

Abstract

Inbred strains of mice such as C57BL and BALB/c are more widely used in published work than outbred stocks of mice such as ICR and CD-1. In contrast, outbred stocks of rats such as Wistar and Sprague-Dawley are more widely used than inbred strains such as F344 and LEW. The properties of inbred and outbred mice and rats are briefly reviewed, and it is concluded that, with some exceptions, there is a strong case for using inbred strains in most controlled experiments. This is because they are usually more uniform, so that fewer animals are usually needed to detect a specified response and they are more repeatable, because they are genetically defined (i.e., the strain can be identified using genetic markers) and less liable to genetic change. Yet many scientists continue to use outbred animals. In Daniel Kahneman's book "Thinking Fast and Slow" he explains that we can answer questions in 2 ways: "fast" by intuition or "slow" by analytical reasoning. The former method is instantaneous, requires no thought but is not evidence based. Analytical reasoning is evidence based but requires hard work, which we all avoid. He has found that "… when faced with a difficult question, we often answer an easier one instead, usually without noticing the substitution." The target question of whether to choose outbred or inbred strains in controlled experiments is a difficult one requiring knowledge of the characteristics of these strains and the principles of experimental design. A substitute question, "are humans and outbred stocks both genetically heterogeneous," is easily answered in the affirmative. It is likely that many scientists are intuitively answering the substitute question and are assuming that they have answered the target question. If so they may be using the wrong animals in their research. Nor is the fact that humans and outbred stocks are alike in being genetically heterogeneous a reason for using them. The whole concept of a "model" is that it is similar to the target in some respects but different in others. Rats and mice differ from humans in that we can control their genotype. This is a positive attribute that enormously increases their value in research. Funding organizations should support research in comparing the 2 types in real experiments.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25541542     DOI: 10.1093/ilar/ilu036

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ILAR J        ISSN: 1084-2020


  27 in total

Review 1.  High-Diversity Mouse Populations for Complex Traits.

Authors:  Michael C Saul; Vivek M Philip; Laura G Reinholdt; Elissa J Chesler
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 11.639

Review 2.  Considerations for Infectious Disease Research Studies Using Animals.

Authors:  Lesley A Colby; Lauriane E Quenee; Lois A Zitzow
Journal:  Comp Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 0.982

3.  Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation.

Authors:  Bernhard Voelkl; Naomi S Altman; Anders Forsman; Wolfgang Forstmeier; Jessica Gurevitch; Ivana Jaric; Natasha A Karp; Martien J Kas; Holger Schielzeth; Tom Van de Casteele; Hanno Würbel
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 34.870

4.  Aggression and increased glutamate in the mPFC during withdrawal from intermittent alcohol in outbred mice.

Authors:  Lara S Hwa; Anna J Nathanson; Akiko Shimamoto; Jillian K Tayeh; Allison R Wilens; Elizabeth N Holly; Emily L Newman; Joseph F DeBold; Klaus A Miczek
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 4.530

5.  Rodent model choice has major impact on variability of standard preclinical readouts associated with diabetes and obesity research.

Authors:  Victoria S Jensen; Trine Porsgaard; Jens Lykkesfeldt; Henning Hvid
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 4.060

Review 6.  The relevance of inter- and intrastrain differences in mice and rats and their implications for models of seizures and epilepsy.

Authors:  Wolfgang Löscher; Russell J Ferland; Thomas N Ferraro
Journal:  Epilepsy Behav       Date:  2017-06-23       Impact factor: 2.937

7.  Study of Longitudinal Aging in Mice: Presentation of Experimental Techniques.

Authors:  Dushani L Palliyaguru; Camila Vieira Ligo Teixeira; Eleonora Duregon; Clara di Germanio; Irene Alfaras; Sarah J Mitchell; Ignacio Navas-Enamorado; Eric J Shiroma; Stephanie Studenski; Michel Bernier; Simonetta Camandola; Nathan L Price; Luigi Ferrucci; Rafael de Cabo
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 6.053

8.  Internal consistency and compatibility of the 3Rs and 3Vs principles for project evaluation of animal research.

Authors:  Matthias Eggel; Hanno Würbel
Journal:  Lab Anim       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 2.471

9.  HNF1α controls glucagon secretion in pancreatic α-cells through modulation of SGLT1.

Authors:  Yoshifumi Sato; Md Mostafizur Rahman; Masaki Haneda; Tomonori Tsuyama; Tomoya Mizumoto; Tatsuya Yoshizawa; Tadahiro Kitamura; Frank J Gonzalez; Ken-Ichi Yamamura; Kazuya Yamagata
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 5.187

10.  Efficacy of the porcine species in biomedical research.

Authors:  Karina Gutierrez; Naomi Dicks; Werner G Glanzner; Luis B Agellon; Vilceu Bordignon
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.