SEE locomotor behavior test discriminates C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse inbred strains across laboratories and protocol conditions.

Conventional tests of behavioral phenotyping frequently have difficulties differentiating certain genotypes and replicating these differences across laboratories and protocol conditions. This study explores the hypothesis that automated tests can be designed to quantify ethologically relevant behavior patterns that more readily characterize heritable and replicable phenotypes. It used SEE (Strategy for the Exploration of Exploration) to phenotype the locomotor behavior of the C57BL/6 and DBA/2 mouse inbred strains across 3 laboratories. The 2 genotypes differed in 15 different measures of behavior, none of which had a significant genotype-laboratory interaction. Within the same laboratory, most of these differences were replicated in additional experiments despite the test photoperiod phase being changed and saline being injected. Results suggest that well-designed tests may considerably enhance replicability across laboratories.

[1]  Karen Albery.  Rats and Mice , 2004, Nature.

[2]  Anat Sakov,et al.  The dynamics of spatial behavior: how can robust smoothing techniques help? , 2004, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[3]  Neri Kafkafi,et al.  Darting behavior: a quantitative movement pattern designed for discrimination and replicability in mouse locomotor behavior , 2003, Behavioural Brain Research.

[4]  Neri Kafkafi,et al.  Extending SEE for large-scale phenotyping of mouse open-field behavior , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[5]  D. Wolfer.  What's wrong with my mouse? Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice , 2002 .

[6]  S. Cabib,et al.  The contribution of comparative studies in inbred strains of mice to the understanding of the hyperactive phenotype , 2002, Behavioural Brain Research.

[7]  Douglas G Wallace,et al.  Quantification of a single exploratory trip reveals hippocampal formation mediated dead reckoning , 2002, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[8]  H. Würbel,et al.  Behavioral phenotyping enhanced – beyond (environmental) standardization , 2002, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[9]  T. Steckler,et al.  The fallacy of behavioral phenotyping without standardisation , 2002, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[10]  I. Whishaw,et al.  Dead reckoning (path integration) requires the hippocampal formation: evidence from spontaneous exploration and spatial learning tasks in light (allothetic) and dark (idiothetic) tests , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[11]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[12]  Yoav Benjamini,et al.  Rats and mice share common ethologically relevant parameters of exploratory behavior , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[13]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Behavioural testing of standard inbred and 5HT1B knockout mice: implications of absent corpus callosum , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[14]  J. Hagan,et al.  Development of SHIRPA to characterise the phenotype of gene-targeted mice , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[15]  Neri Kafkafi,et al.  Natural segmentation of the locomotor behavior of drug-induced rats in a photobeam cage , 2001, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[16]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Standardizing tests of mouse behavior: Reasons, recommendations, and reality , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.

[17]  A. J Spink,et al.  The EthoVision video tracking system—A tool for behavioral phenotyping of transgenic mice , 2001, Physiology & Behavior.

[18]  Ilan Golani,et al.  SEE: a tool for the visualization and analysis of rodent exploratory behavior , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[19]  Hanno Würbel,et al.  Behaviour and the standardization fallacy , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[20]  Janan T. Eppig,et al.  A mouse phenome project , 2000, Mammalian Genome.

[21]  Steve D. M. Brown,et al.  A systematic, genome-wide, phenotype-driven mutagenesis programme for gene function studies in the mouse , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[22]  A. A. Reilly,et al.  Habituation of Activity in an Open Field: A Survey of Inbred Strains and F1 Hybrids , 2000, Behavior genetics.

[23]  Yoav Benjamini,et al.  Statistical discrimination of natural modes of motion in rat exploratory behavior , 2000, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[24]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  A step-down multiple hypotheses testing procedure that controls the false discovery rate under independence , 1999 .

[25]  Jim J. Hagan,et al.  Use of SHIRPA and discriminant analysis to characterise marked differences in the behavioural phenotype of six inbred mouse strains , 1999, Behavioural Brain Research.

[26]  Jonathan Flint,et al.  High-resolution mapping of quantitative trait loci for emotionality in selected strains of mice , 1999, Mammalian Genome.

[27]  J. Crabbe,et al.  Genetics of mouse behavior: interactions with laboratory environment. , 1999, Science.

[28]  Ofer Tchernichovski,et al.  The dynamics of long-term exploration in the rat , 1998, Biological Cybernetics.

[29]  B. Rocha,et al.  Differential responsiveness to cocaine in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice , 1998, Psychopharmacology.

[30]  J. Wehner,et al.  Assessment of locomotor activity, acoustic and tactile startle, and prepulse inhibition of startle in inbred mouse strains and F1 hybrids: Implications of genetic background for single gene and quantitative trait loci analyses , 1997, Neuroscience.

[31]  A. Cools,et al.  Different behavioral effects of daily or intermittent dexamphetamine administration in Nijmegen high and low responders , 1997, Psychopharmacology.

[32]  A. R. Cools,et al.  Differences in vulnerability and susceptibility to dexamphetamine in Nijmegen high and low responders to novelty: a dose-effect analysis of spatio-temporal programming of behaviour , 1997, Psychopharmacology.

[33]  Allan Collins,et al.  Behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains: implications and recommendations for molecular studies , 1997, Psychopharmacology.

[34]  S. Cabib,et al.  Parallel Strain-Dependent Susceptibility to Environmentally-Induced Stereotypies and Stress-Induced Behavioral Sensitization in Mice , 1997, Physiology & Behavior.

[35]  R. Gerlai.  Molecular genetic analysis of mammalian behavior and brain processes: caveats and perspectives , 1996 .

[36]  J. Crawley.  Unusual behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains , 1996, Trends in Neurosciences.

[37]  G. Elmer,et al.  Acute sensitivity vs. context-specific sensitization to cocaine as a function of genotype , 1996, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[38]  Ofer Tchernichovski,et al.  A phase plane representation of rat exploratory behavior , 1995, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[39]  A. C. Collins,et al.  A simple genetic basis for a complex psychological trait in laboratory mice , 1995, Science.

[40]  J. Messier-Mann.  The dynamics of long term care. , 1995, The Canadian nurse.

[41]  J. Carney,et al.  Locomotor stimulant effects of cocaine and novel cocaine analogs in DBA/2J and C57BL/6J inbred mice , 1995, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[42]  J. Witkin,et al.  Verticalization of behavior elicited by dopaminergic mobilization is qualitatively different between C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice , 1994, Psychopharmacology.

[43]  I. Whishaw,et al.  “Short‐stops” in rats with fimbria‐fornix lesions: Evidence for change in the mobility gradient , 1994, Hippocampus.

[44]  J. Takahashi,et al.  Forward and reverse genetic approaches to behavior in the mouse. , 1994, Science.

[45]  B. Jones,et al.  Characterization of dopamine transporter and locomotor effects of cocaine, GBR 12909, epidepride, and SCH 23390 in C57BL and DBA mice , 1994, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[46]  R. Fildes.  Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B): Gary K. Grunwald, Adrian E. Raftery and Peter Guttorp, 1993, “Time series of continuous proportions”, 55, 103–116.☆ , 1993 .

[47]  R. Radcliffe,et al.  Pharmacogenetics of cocaine: I. Locomotor activity and self-selection. , 1993, Pharmacogenetics.

[48]  Martin P. Paulus,et al.  Three independent factors characterize spontaneous rat motor activity , 1993, Behavioural Brain Research.

[49]  David Eilam,et al.  Stopping behavior: constraints on exploration in rats (Rattus norvegicus) , 1993, Behavioural Brain Research.

[50]  L. Mark Berliner,et al.  Journal of the American statistics association: "Likelihood and bayesian prediction of chaotic systems", 86 (1991) 938-952 , 1992 .

[51]  I. Golani.  A mobility gradient in the organization of vertebrate movement: The perception of movement through symbolic language , 1992, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[52]  D. Eilam,et al.  Home base behavior of rats (Rattus norvegicus) exploring a novel environment , 1989, Behavioural Brain Research.

[53]  David Eilam,et al.  D2-agonist quinpirole induces perseveration of routes and hyperactivity but no perseveration of movements , 1989, Brain Research.

[54]  M. Braga,et al.  Exploratory Data Analysis , 2018, Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining. 2nd Ed..

[55]  W. Cleveland.  Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots , 1979 .

[56]  L. Gorris,et al.  Behavioural effects of (-)naloxone in mice from four inbred strains , 2004, Psychopharmacology.

[57]  J. Crabbe,et al.  QTL Analysis and Genomewide Mutagenesis in Mice: Complementary Genetic Approaches to the Dissection of Complex Traits , 2001, Behavior genetics.

[58]  D. Eilam,et al.  Role of dopamine systems in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD): implications from a novel psychostimulant-induced animal model. , 1999, Polish journal of pharmacology.

[59]  Ofer Tchernichovski,et al.  Constraints and the Emergence of 'Free' Exploratory Behavior in Rat Ontogeny , 1996 .

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

[61]  A. P. Meehan.  Rats and Mice , 1984 .