Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSimon, Michelle M
dc.contributor.authorGreenaway, Simon
dc.contributor.authorWhite, Jacqueline K
dc.contributor.authorFuchs, Helmut
dc.contributor.authorGailus-Durner, Valérie
dc.contributor.authorWells, Sara
dc.contributor.authorSorg, Tania
dc.contributor.authorWong, Kim
dc.contributor.authorBedu, Elodie
dc.contributor.authorCartwright, Elizabeth J
dc.contributor.authorDacquin, Romain
dc.contributor.authorDjebali, Sophia
dc.contributor.authorEstabel, Jeanne
dc.contributor.authorGraw, Jochen
dc.contributor.authorIngham, Neil J
dc.contributor.authorJackson, Ian J
dc.contributor.authorLengeling, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorMandillo, Silvia
dc.contributor.authorMarvel, Jacqueline
dc.contributor.authorMeziane, Hamid
dc.contributor.authorPreitner, Frédéric
dc.contributor.authorPuk, Oliver
dc.contributor.authorRoux, Michel
dc.contributor.authorAdams, David J
dc.contributor.authorAtkins, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorAyadi, Abdel
dc.contributor.authorBecker, Lore
dc.contributor.authorBlake, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorBrooker, Debra
dc.contributor.authorCater, Heather
dc.contributor.authorChampy, Marie-France
dc.contributor.authorCombe, Roy
dc.contributor.authorDanecek, Petr
dc.contributor.authordi Fenza, Armida
dc.contributor.authorGates, Hilary
dc.contributor.authorGerdin, Anna-Karin
dc.contributor.authorGolini, Elisabetta
dc.contributor.authorHancock, John M
dc.contributor.authorHans, Wolfgang
dc.contributor.authorHölter, Sabine M
dc.contributor.authorHough, Tertius
dc.contributor.authorJurdic, Pierre
dc.contributor.authorKeane, Thomas M
dc.contributor.authorMorgan, Hugh
dc.contributor.authorMüller, Werner
dc.contributor.authorNeff, Frauke
dc.contributor.authorNicholson, George
dc.contributor.authorPasche, Bastian
dc.contributor.authorRoberson, Laura-Anne
dc.contributor.authorRozman, Jan
dc.contributor.authorSanderson, Mark
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Luis
dc.contributor.authorSelloum, Mohammed
dc.contributor.authorShannon, Carl
dc.contributor.authorSouthwell, Anne
dc.contributor.authorTocchini-Valentini, Glauco P
dc.contributor.authorVancollie, Valerie E
dc.contributor.authorWesterberg, Henrik
dc.contributor.authorWurst, Wolfgang
dc.contributor.authorZi, Min
dc.contributor.authorYalcin, Binnaz
dc.contributor.authorRamirez-Solis, Ramiro
dc.contributor.authorSteel, Karen P
dc.contributor.authorMallon, Ann-Marie
dc.contributor.authorHrabě de Angelis, Martin
dc.contributor.authorHerault, Yann
dc.contributor.authorBrown, Steve D
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-13T09:46:41Z
dc.date.available2017-01-13T09:46:41Z
dc.date.issued2013-07-31en
dc.identifier.citationGenome Biology. 2013 Jul 31;14(7):R82en
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-7-r82en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10033/620694
dc.description.abstractAbstract Background The mouse inbred line C57BL/6J is widely used in mouse genetics and its genome has been incorporated into many genetic reference populations. More recently large initiatives such as the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) are using the C57BL/6N mouse strain to generate null alleles for all mouse genes. Hence both strains are now widely used in mouse genetics studies. Here we perform a comprehensive genomic and phenotypic analysis of the two strains to identify differences that may influence their underlying genetic mechanisms. Results We undertake genome sequence comparisons of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N to identify SNPs, indels and structural variants, with a focus on identifying all coding variants. We annotate 34 SNPs and 2 indels that distinguish C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N coding sequences, as well as 15 structural variants that overlap a gene. In parallel we assess the comparative phenotypes of the two inbred lines utilizing the EMPReSSslim phenotyping pipeline, a broad based assessment encompassing diverse biological systems. We perform additional secondary phenotyping assessments to explore other phenotype domains and to elaborate phenotype differences identified in the primary assessment. We uncover significant phenotypic differences between the two lines, replicated across multiple centers, in a number of physiological, biochemical and behavioral systems. Conclusions Comparison of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N demonstrates a range of phenotypic differences that have the potential to impact upon penetrance and expressivity of mutational effects in these strains. Moreover, the sequence variants we identify provide a set of candidate genes for the phenotypic differences observed between the two strains.
dc.titleA comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strainsen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.language.rfc3066enen
dc.rights.holderSimon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.en
dc.date.updated2015-09-04T08:31:22Zen
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-13T01:22:32Z
html.description.abstractAbstract Background The mouse inbred line C57BL/6J is widely used in mouse genetics and its genome has been incorporated into many genetic reference populations. More recently large initiatives such as the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) are using the C57BL/6N mouse strain to generate null alleles for all mouse genes. Hence both strains are now widely used in mouse genetics studies. Here we perform a comprehensive genomic and phenotypic analysis of the two strains to identify differences that may influence their underlying genetic mechanisms. Results We undertake genome sequence comparisons of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N to identify SNPs, indels and structural variants, with a focus on identifying all coding variants. We annotate 34 SNPs and 2 indels that distinguish C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N coding sequences, as well as 15 structural variants that overlap a gene. In parallel we assess the comparative phenotypes of the two inbred lines utilizing the EMPReSSslim phenotyping pipeline, a broad based assessment encompassing diverse biological systems. We perform additional secondary phenotyping assessments to explore other phenotype domains and to elaborate phenotype differences identified in the primary assessment. We uncover significant phenotypic differences between the two lines, replicated across multiple centers, in a number of physiological, biochemical and behavioral systems. Conclusions Comparison of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N demonstrates a range of phenotypic differences that have the potential to impact upon penetrance and expressivity of mutational effects in these strains. Moreover, the sequence variants we identify provide a set of candidate genes for the phenotypic differences observed between the two strains.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
13059_2013_Article_3155.pdf
Size:
1.237Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record