Different data from different labs: Lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction

Douglas Wahlsten, Pamela Metten, Tamara Phillips, Stephen L. Boehm, Sue Burkhart-Kasch, Janet Dorow, Sharon Doerksen, Chris Downing, Jennifer Fogarty, Kristina Rodd-Henricks, René Hen, Carrie S. McKinnon, Catherine M. Merrill, Cedar Nolte, Melike Schalomon, Jason P. Schlumbohm, Jason R. Sibert, Charlotte D. Wenger, Bruce C. Dudek, John Jr Crabbe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

330 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It is sometimes supposed that standardizing tests of mouse behavior will ensure similar results in different laboratories. We evaluated this supposition by conducting behavioral tests with identical apparatus and test protocols in independent laboratories. Eight genetic groups of mice, including equal numbers of males and females, were either bred locally or shipped from the supplier and then tested on six behaviors simultaneously in three laboratories (Albany, NY; Edmonton, AB; Portland, OR). The behaviors included locomotor activity in a small box, the elevated plus maze, accelerating rotarod, visible platform water escape, cocaine activation of locomotor activity, and ethanol preference in a two-bottle test. A preliminary report of this study presented a conventional analysis of conventional measures that revealed strong effects of both genotype and laboratory as well as noteworthy interactions between genotype and laboratory. We now report a more detailed analysis of additional measures and view the data for each test in different ways. Whether mice were shipped from a supplier or bred locally had negligible effects for almost every measure in the six tests, and sex differences were also absent or very small for most behaviors, whereas genetic effects were almost always large. For locomotor activity, cocaine activation, and elevated plus maze, the analysis demonstrated the strong dependence of genetic differences in behavior on the laboratory giving the tests. For ethanol preference and water escape learning, on the other hand, the three labs obtained essentially the same results for key indicators of behavior. Thus, it is clear that the strong dependence of results on the specific laboratory is itself dependent on the task in question. Our results suggest that there may be advantages of test standardization, but laboratory environments probably can never be made sufficiently similar to guarantee identical results on a wide range of tests in a wide range of labs. Interpretations of our results by colleagues in neuroscience as well as the mass media are reviewed. Pessimistic views, prevalent in the media but relatively uncommon among neuroscientists, of mouse behavioral tests as being highly unreliable are contradicted by our data. Despite the presence of noteworthy interactions between genotype and lab environment, most of the larger differences between inbred strains were replicated across the three labs. Strain differences of moderate effects size, on the other hand, often differed markedly among labs, especially those involving three 129-derived strains. Implications for behavioral screening of targeted and induced mutations in mice are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)283-311
Number of pages29
JournalJournal of Neurobiology
Volume54
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Gene-Environment Interaction
Locomotion
Genotype
Cocaine
Ethanol
Mass Media
Water
Neurosciences
Sex Characteristics
Learning
Mutation

Keywords

  • Accelerating rotarod
  • Anxiety
  • Cocaine
  • Elevated plus maze
  • Ethanol preference
  • Gene-environment interaction
  • Inbred strain
  • Knockout
  • Locomotor activity
  • Mouse
  • Serotonin 1B receptor
  • Test reliability
  • Water escape learning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Neuroscience(all)

Cite this

Different data from different labs : Lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction. / Wahlsten, Douglas; Metten, Pamela; Phillips, Tamara; Boehm, Stephen L.; Burkhart-Kasch, Sue; Dorow, Janet; Doerksen, Sharon; Downing, Chris; Fogarty, Jennifer; Rodd-Henricks, Kristina; Hen, René; McKinnon, Carrie S.; Merrill, Catherine M.; Nolte, Cedar; Schalomon, Melike; Schlumbohm, Jason P.; Sibert, Jason R.; Wenger, Charlotte D.; Dudek, Bruce C.; Crabbe, John Jr.

In: Journal of Neurobiology, Vol. 54, No. 1, 01.01.2003, p. 283-311.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wahlsten, D, Metten, P, Phillips, T, Boehm, SL, Burkhart-Kasch, S, Dorow, J, Doerksen, S, Downing, C, Fogarty, J, Rodd-Henricks, K, Hen, R, McKinnon, CS, Merrill, CM, Nolte, C, Schalomon, M, Schlumbohm, JP, Sibert, JR, Wenger, CD, Dudek, BC & Crabbe, JJ 2003, 'Different data from different labs: Lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction', Journal of Neurobiology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 283-311. https://doi.org/10.1002/neu.10173
Wahlsten, Douglas ; Metten, Pamela ; Phillips, Tamara ; Boehm, Stephen L. ; Burkhart-Kasch, Sue ; Dorow, Janet ; Doerksen, Sharon ; Downing, Chris ; Fogarty, Jennifer ; Rodd-Henricks, Kristina ; Hen, René ; McKinnon, Carrie S. ; Merrill, Catherine M. ; Nolte, Cedar ; Schalomon, Melike ; Schlumbohm, Jason P. ; Sibert, Jason R. ; Wenger, Charlotte D. ; Dudek, Bruce C. ; Crabbe, John Jr. / Different data from different labs : Lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction. In: Journal of Neurobiology. 2003 ; Vol. 54, No. 1. pp. 283-311.
@article{1a9a43df09604b278e68f94cd42554c9,
title = "Different data from different labs: Lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction",
abstract = "It is sometimes supposed that standardizing tests of mouse behavior will ensure similar results in different laboratories. We evaluated this supposition by conducting behavioral tests with identical apparatus and test protocols in independent laboratories. Eight genetic groups of mice, including equal numbers of males and females, were either bred locally or shipped from the supplier and then tested on six behaviors simultaneously in three laboratories (Albany, NY; Edmonton, AB; Portland, OR). The behaviors included locomotor activity in a small box, the elevated plus maze, accelerating rotarod, visible platform water escape, cocaine activation of locomotor activity, and ethanol preference in a two-bottle test. A preliminary report of this study presented a conventional analysis of conventional measures that revealed strong effects of both genotype and laboratory as well as noteworthy interactions between genotype and laboratory. We now report a more detailed analysis of additional measures and view the data for each test in different ways. Whether mice were shipped from a supplier or bred locally had negligible effects for almost every measure in the six tests, and sex differences were also absent or very small for most behaviors, whereas genetic effects were almost always large. For locomotor activity, cocaine activation, and elevated plus maze, the analysis demonstrated the strong dependence of genetic differences in behavior on the laboratory giving the tests. For ethanol preference and water escape learning, on the other hand, the three labs obtained essentially the same results for key indicators of behavior. Thus, it is clear that the strong dependence of results on the specific laboratory is itself dependent on the task in question. Our results suggest that there may be advantages of test standardization, but laboratory environments probably can never be made sufficiently similar to guarantee identical results on a wide range of tests in a wide range of labs. Interpretations of our results by colleagues in neuroscience as well as the mass media are reviewed. Pessimistic views, prevalent in the media but relatively uncommon among neuroscientists, of mouse behavioral tests as being highly unreliable are contradicted by our data. Despite the presence of noteworthy interactions between genotype and lab environment, most of the larger differences between inbred strains were replicated across the three labs. Strain differences of moderate effects size, on the other hand, often differed markedly among labs, especially those involving three 129-derived strains. Implications for behavioral screening of targeted and induced mutations in mice are discussed.",
keywords = "Accelerating rotarod, Anxiety, Cocaine, Elevated plus maze, Ethanol preference, Gene-environment interaction, Inbred strain, Knockout, Locomotor activity, Mouse, Serotonin 1B receptor, Test reliability, Water escape learning",
author = "Douglas Wahlsten and Pamela Metten and Tamara Phillips and Boehm, {Stephen L.} and Sue Burkhart-Kasch and Janet Dorow and Sharon Doerksen and Chris Downing and Jennifer Fogarty and Kristina Rodd-Henricks and Ren{\'e} Hen and McKinnon, {Carrie S.} and Merrill, {Catherine M.} and Cedar Nolte and Melike Schalomon and Schlumbohm, {Jason P.} and Sibert, {Jason R.} and Wenger, {Charlotte D.} and Dudek, {Bruce C.} and Crabbe, {John Jr}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/neu.10173",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "54",
pages = "283--311",
journal = "Developmental Neurobiology",
issn = "1932-8451",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Different data from different labs

T2 - Lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction

AU - Wahlsten, Douglas

AU - Metten, Pamela

AU - Phillips, Tamara

AU - Boehm, Stephen L.

AU - Burkhart-Kasch, Sue

AU - Dorow, Janet

AU - Doerksen, Sharon

AU - Downing, Chris

AU - Fogarty, Jennifer

AU - Rodd-Henricks, Kristina

AU - Hen, René

AU - McKinnon, Carrie S.

AU - Merrill, Catherine M.

AU - Nolte, Cedar

AU - Schalomon, Melike

AU - Schlumbohm, Jason P.

AU - Sibert, Jason R.

AU - Wenger, Charlotte D.

AU - Dudek, Bruce C.

AU - Crabbe, John Jr

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - It is sometimes supposed that standardizing tests of mouse behavior will ensure similar results in different laboratories. We evaluated this supposition by conducting behavioral tests with identical apparatus and test protocols in independent laboratories. Eight genetic groups of mice, including equal numbers of males and females, were either bred locally or shipped from the supplier and then tested on six behaviors simultaneously in three laboratories (Albany, NY; Edmonton, AB; Portland, OR). The behaviors included locomotor activity in a small box, the elevated plus maze, accelerating rotarod, visible platform water escape, cocaine activation of locomotor activity, and ethanol preference in a two-bottle test. A preliminary report of this study presented a conventional analysis of conventional measures that revealed strong effects of both genotype and laboratory as well as noteworthy interactions between genotype and laboratory. We now report a more detailed analysis of additional measures and view the data for each test in different ways. Whether mice were shipped from a supplier or bred locally had negligible effects for almost every measure in the six tests, and sex differences were also absent or very small for most behaviors, whereas genetic effects were almost always large. For locomotor activity, cocaine activation, and elevated plus maze, the analysis demonstrated the strong dependence of genetic differences in behavior on the laboratory giving the tests. For ethanol preference and water escape learning, on the other hand, the three labs obtained essentially the same results for key indicators of behavior. Thus, it is clear that the strong dependence of results on the specific laboratory is itself dependent on the task in question. Our results suggest that there may be advantages of test standardization, but laboratory environments probably can never be made sufficiently similar to guarantee identical results on a wide range of tests in a wide range of labs. Interpretations of our results by colleagues in neuroscience as well as the mass media are reviewed. Pessimistic views, prevalent in the media but relatively uncommon among neuroscientists, of mouse behavioral tests as being highly unreliable are contradicted by our data. Despite the presence of noteworthy interactions between genotype and lab environment, most of the larger differences between inbred strains were replicated across the three labs. Strain differences of moderate effects size, on the other hand, often differed markedly among labs, especially those involving three 129-derived strains. Implications for behavioral screening of targeted and induced mutations in mice are discussed.

AB - It is sometimes supposed that standardizing tests of mouse behavior will ensure similar results in different laboratories. We evaluated this supposition by conducting behavioral tests with identical apparatus and test protocols in independent laboratories. Eight genetic groups of mice, including equal numbers of males and females, were either bred locally or shipped from the supplier and then tested on six behaviors simultaneously in three laboratories (Albany, NY; Edmonton, AB; Portland, OR). The behaviors included locomotor activity in a small box, the elevated plus maze, accelerating rotarod, visible platform water escape, cocaine activation of locomotor activity, and ethanol preference in a two-bottle test. A preliminary report of this study presented a conventional analysis of conventional measures that revealed strong effects of both genotype and laboratory as well as noteworthy interactions between genotype and laboratory. We now report a more detailed analysis of additional measures and view the data for each test in different ways. Whether mice were shipped from a supplier or bred locally had negligible effects for almost every measure in the six tests, and sex differences were also absent or very small for most behaviors, whereas genetic effects were almost always large. For locomotor activity, cocaine activation, and elevated plus maze, the analysis demonstrated the strong dependence of genetic differences in behavior on the laboratory giving the tests. For ethanol preference and water escape learning, on the other hand, the three labs obtained essentially the same results for key indicators of behavior. Thus, it is clear that the strong dependence of results on the specific laboratory is itself dependent on the task in question. Our results suggest that there may be advantages of test standardization, but laboratory environments probably can never be made sufficiently similar to guarantee identical results on a wide range of tests in a wide range of labs. Interpretations of our results by colleagues in neuroscience as well as the mass media are reviewed. Pessimistic views, prevalent in the media but relatively uncommon among neuroscientists, of mouse behavioral tests as being highly unreliable are contradicted by our data. Despite the presence of noteworthy interactions between genotype and lab environment, most of the larger differences between inbred strains were replicated across the three labs. Strain differences of moderate effects size, on the other hand, often differed markedly among labs, especially those involving three 129-derived strains. Implications for behavioral screening of targeted and induced mutations in mice are discussed.

KW - Accelerating rotarod

KW - Anxiety

KW - Cocaine

KW - Elevated plus maze

KW - Ethanol preference

KW - Gene-environment interaction

KW - Inbred strain

KW - Knockout

KW - Locomotor activity

KW - Mouse

KW - Serotonin 1B receptor

KW - Test reliability

KW - Water escape learning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037220267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037220267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/neu.10173

DO - 10.1002/neu.10173

M3 - Article

C2 - 12486710

AN - SCOPUS:0037220267

VL - 54

SP - 283

EP - 311

JO - Developmental Neurobiology

JF - Developmental Neurobiology

SN - 1932-8451

IS - 1

ER -