Gene expression variation between mouse inbred strains

BackgroundIn this study, we investigated the effect of genetic background on expression profiles. We analysed the transcriptome of mouse hindlimb muscle of five frequently used mouse inbred strains using spotted oligonucleotide microarrays.ResultsThrough ANOVA analysis with a false discovery rate of 10%, we show that 1.4% of the analysed genes is significantly differentially expressed between these mouse strains. Differential expression of several of these genes has been confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR. The number of genes affected by genetic background is approximately ten-fold lower than the number of differentially expressed genes caused by a dystrophic genetic defect.ConclusionsWe conclude that evaluation of the effect of background on gene expression profiles in the tissue under study is an effective and sensible approach when comparing expression patterns in animal models with heterogeneous genetic backgrounds. Genes affected by the genetic background can be excluded in subsequent analyses of the disease-related changes in expression profiles. This is often a more effective strategy than backcrossing and inbreeding to obtain isogenic backgrounds.

[1]  Paul A Lyons,et al.  Combining mouse congenic strains and microarray gene expression analyses to study a complex trait: the NOD model of type 1 diabetes. , 2002, Genome research.

[2]  R. Stoughton,et al.  Genetics of gene expression surveyed in maize, mouse and man , 2003, Nature.

[3]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  Analysis of strain and regional variation in gene expression in mouse brain , 2001, Genome Biology.

[4]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[5]  Martin Vingron,et al.  Variance stabilization applied to microarray data calibration and to the quantification of differential expression , 2002, ISMB.

[6]  J. D. den Dunnen,et al.  Fluorescent labelling of cRNA for microarray applications. , 2003, Nucleic acids research.

[7]  Renée X de Menezes,et al.  Microarray data analysis: a hierarchical T-test to handle heteroscedasticity. , 2004, Applied bioinformatics.

[8]  Yidong Chen,et al.  Amine-modified random primers to label probes for DNA microarrays. , 2002 .

[9]  R. Plomin,et al.  Hippocampal gene expression profiling across eight mouse inbred strains: towards understanding the molecular basis for behaviour , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[10]  Janan T. Eppig,et al.  Genealogies of mouse inbred strains , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[11]  L. Wodicka,et al.  Regional and strain-specific gene expression mapping in the adult mouse brain. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  Gary A. Churchill,et al.  Analysis of Variance for Gene Expression Microarray Data , 2000, J. Comput. Biol..

[13]  P. Nelson,et al.  Project normal: Defining normal variance in mouse gene expression , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  Yidong Chen,et al.  Amine-modified random primers to label probes for DNA microarrays , 2002, Nature Biotechnology.

[15]  Eric S. Lander,et al.  The mosaic structure of variation in the laboratory mouse genome , 2002, Nature.

[16]  Yoav Benjamini,et al.  Identifying differentially expressed genes using false discovery rate controlling procedures , 2003, Bioinform..

[17]  E. Lander,et al.  Detection of regulatory variation in mouse genes , 2002, Nature Genetics.