Effect of Population Heterogenization on the Reproducibility of Mouse Behavior: A Multi-Laboratory Study

In animal experiments, animals, husbandry and test procedures are traditionally standardized to maximize test sensitivity and minimize animal use, assuming that this will also guarantee reproducibility. However, by reducing within-experiment variation, standardization may limit inference to the specific experimental conditions. Indeed, we have recently shown in mice that standardization may generate spurious results in behavioral tests, accounting for poor reproducibility, and that this can be avoided by population heterogenization through systematic variation of experimental conditions. Here, we examined whether a simple form of heterogenization effectively improves reproducibility of test results in a multi-laboratory situation. Each of six laboratories independently ordered 64 female mice of two inbred strains (C57BL/6NCrl, DBA/2NCrl) and examined them for strain differences in five commonly used behavioral tests under two different experimental designs. In the standardized design, experimental conditions were standardized as much as possible in each laboratory, while they were systematically varied with respect to the animals' test age and cage enrichment in the heterogenized design. Although heterogenization tended to improve reproducibility by increasing within-experiment variation relative to between-experiment variation, the effect was too weak to account for the large variation between laboratories. However, our findings confirm the potential of systematic heterogenization for improving reproducibility of animal experiments and highlight the need for effective and practicable heterogenization strategies.

[1]  Roger M. Nitsch,et al.  Laboratory animal welfare: Cage enrichment and mouse behaviour , 2004, Nature.

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

[3]  C. S. Hall,et al.  Emotional behavior in the rat. I. Defecation and urination as measures of individual differences in emotionality. , 1934 .

[4]  Richard Paylor,et al.  Behavioral and physiological mouse assays for anxiety: a survey in nine mouse strains , 2002, Behavioural Brain Research.

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

[6]  M. Le Moal,et al.  Abolition and reversal of strain differences in behavioral responses to drugs of abuse after a brief experience. , 2000, Science.

[7]  Good Experimental Design and Statistics Can save Animals, But how can it be Promoted? , 2004, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[8]  J. Reid Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists , 2003 .

[9]  U. Rudolph,et al.  Resolving differences in GABAA receptor mutant mouse studies , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[10]  Members of the Complex Trait Consortium Standardizing global gene expression analysis between laboratories and across platforms , 2005 .

[11]  E. Simpson,et al.  The dark phase improves genetic discrimination for some high throughput mouse behavioral phenotyping , 2004, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[12]  Division on Earth Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals , 1996 .

[13]  F. Prato,et al.  A detailed ethological analysis of the mouse open field test: effects of diazepam, chlordiazepoxide and an extremely low frequency pulsed magnetic field , 2001, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

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

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

[16]  S. Morato,et al.  Effect of different illumination levels on rat behavior in the elevated plus-maze , 2005, Physiology & Behavior.

[17]  John Quackenbush,et al.  Multiple-laboratory comparison of microarray platforms , 2005, Nature Methods.

[18]  Samuel M. Scheiner,et al.  Phenotypic plasticity : functional and conceptual approaches , 2004 .

[19]  Mike Hansell,et al.  Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, Paul Martin, Patrick Bateson. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge (1986), x, +200. Price £20.00 (hardback), £6.95 (paperback) , 1987 .

[20]  I. Yaniv,et al.  Environmental enrichment in mice decreases anxiety, attenuates stress responses and enhances natural killer cell activity , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[21]  S. File,et al.  Validation of open : closed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat , 1985, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[22]  A. Vyssotski,et al.  A comparison of wild-caught wood mice and bank voles in the Intellicage: assessing exploration, daily activity patterns and place learning paradigms , 2005, Behavioural Brain Research.

[23]  L. de Visser,et al.  Novel approach to the behavioural characterization of inbred mice: automated home cage observations , 2006, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[24]  Yoav Benjamini,et al.  SEE locomotor behavior test discriminates C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mouse inbred strains across laboratories and protocol conditions. , 2003, Behavioral neuroscience.

[25]  R. Spanagel,et al.  Social and structural housing conditions influence the development of a depressive-like phenotype in the learned helplessness paradigm in male mice , 2005, Behavioural Brain Research.

[26]  Richard Paylor,et al.  Questioning standardization in science , 2009, Nature Methods.

[27]  S. Helene Richter,et al.  Environmental standardization: cure or cause of poor reproducibility in animal experiments? , 2009, Nature Methods.

[28]  William Valdar,et al.  Genetic and Environmental Effects on Complex Traits in Mice , 2006, Genetics.

[29]  M. Schachner,et al.  Environmental bias? Effects of housing conditions, laboratory environment and experimenter on behavioral tests , 2005, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[30]  Anat Sakov,et al.  Genotype-environment interactions in mouse behavior: a way out of the problem. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[31]  L. Schalkwyk,et al.  Behavioural battery testing: Evaluation and behavioural outcomes in 8 inbred mouse strains , 2010, Physiology & Behavior.

[32]  C. Dourish,et al.  Behavioural and pharmacological characterisation of the elevated “zero-maze” as an animal model of anxiety , 1994, Psychopharmacology.

[33]  Gary A. Churchill,et al.  Randomization in Laboratory Procedure Is Key to Obtaining Reproducible Microarray Results , 2008, PloS one.

[34]  Michael F. W. Festing,et al.  The Design of Animal Experiments , 2010 .

[35]  L. V. Zutphen,et al.  Principles of Laboratory Animal Science , 1993 .

[36]  G. Sales,et al.  Environmental ultrasound in laboratories and animal houses: a possible cause for concern in the welfare and use of laboratory animals , 1988, Laboratory animals.

[37]  Douglas Wahlsten,et al.  Different data from different labs: lessons from studies of gene-environment interaction. , 2003, Journal of neurobiology.

[38]  D. Tautz A genetic uncertainty problem. , 2000, Trends in genetics : TIG.

[39]  A. Herzberg,et al.  Cage allocation designs for rodent carcinogenicity experiments. , 1992, Environmental health perspectives.

[40]  H. Rauvala,et al.  Long‐term individual housing in C57BL/6J and DBA/2 mice: assessment of behavioral consequences , 2004, Genes, brain, and behavior.

[41]  F. V. D. Staay,et al.  Behavioural phenotyping of mouse mutants , 2001, Behavioural Brain Research.

[42]  M. Low,et al.  Dopamine D4 Receptor-Knock-Out Mice Exhibit Reduced Exploration of Novel Stimuli , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[43]  Jack W. Tsao,et al.  What's wrong with my mouse: Behavioral phenotyping of transgenic and knockout mice, J. Crawley. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ (2007), 523 pages, $99.95 , 2008 .

[44]  James J. Lindsay,et al.  Research in the Psychological Laboratory , 1999 .

[45]  A. Carobrez,et al.  Influence of gender and age on performance of rats in the elevated plus maze apparatus , 1993, Behavioural Brain Research.

[46]  Bryan Frank,et al.  Independence and reproducibility across microarray platforms , 2005, Nature Methods.

[47]  C S Weil,et al.  Study of intra- and interlaboratory variability in the results of rabbit eye and skin irritation tests. , 1971, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[48]  Great Britain. Hm Factory Inspectorate An introductory guide , 1987 .

[49]  K. J. Obrink,et al.  Animal definition: a necessity for the validity of animal experiments? , 2000, Laboratory animals.

[50]  C. S. Hall,et al.  Emotional behavior in the rat. III. The relationship between emotionality and ambulatory activity. , 1936 .

[51]  K. Fukunishi,et al.  Estimated magnitude of behavioral effects of phenytoin in rats and its reproducibility: A collaborative behavioral teratology study in Japan , 1996, Physiology & Behavior.

[52]  V. Baumans,et al.  Strain specific behavioural response to environmental enrichment in the mouse. , 1994, Journal of experimental animal science.

[53]  M. Festing Refinement and Reduction through the Control of Variation , 2004, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[54]  Elissa J Chesler,et al.  Identification and ranking of genetic and laboratory environment factors influencing a behavioral trait, thermal nociception, via computational analysis of a large data archive , 2002, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[55]  Joseph P. Garner,et al.  Refinement of rodent research through environmental enrichment and systematic randomization , 2007 .

[56]  Valter Tucci,et al.  Gene-environment interactions differentially affect mouse strain behavioral parameters , 2006, Mammalian Genome.

[57]  Vincent Peters,et al.  The Validity of Laboratory Research in Social and Behavioral Science , 2001 .

[58]  H. Prior,et al.  Effects of enriched housing environment on the behaviour of young male and female mice in four exploratory tasks , 1995 .

[59]  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.

[60]  Susanna Louhimies Directive 86/609/EEC on the Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes 1 , 2002, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[61]  Jeffrey S. Morris,et al.  Reproducibility of SELDI-TOF protein patterns in serum: comparing datasets from different experiments , 2004, Bioinform..

[62]  Kathleen F. Kerr,et al.  Standardizing global gene expression analysis between laboratories and across platforms , 2005, Nature Methods.

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

[64]  Steve D. M. Brown,et al.  Reliability, robustness, and reproducibility in mouse behavioral phenotyping: a cross-laboratory study. , 2008, Physiological genomics.

[65]  R. Hellweg,et al.  Nature vs. nurture: Can enrichment rescue the behavioural phenotype of BDNF heterozygous mice? , 2008, Behavioural Brain Research.

[66]  Gerry P. Quinn,et al.  Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists: Randomized blocks and simple repeated measures: unreplicated two factor designs , 2002 .

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

[68]  Joachim Kunert,et al.  Systematic variation improves reproducibility of animal experiments , 2010, Nature Methods.

[69]  G. Quinn,et al.  Experimental Design and Data Analysis for Biologists , 2002 .

[70]  A. Barnekow,et al.  Effects of different forms of environmental enrichment on behavioral, endocrinological, and immunological parameters in male mice , 2003, Hormones and Behavior.

[71]  G. Sales,et al.  Sound levels in rooms housing laboratory animals: An uncontrolled daily variable , 1993, Physiology & Behavior.

[72]  V. Baumans,et al.  ICLAS proceedings: Evaluation of long-term environmental enrichment in the mouse , 1996 .