1 / 36

Multi-Center Trial of a Standardized Battery of Tests of Mouse Behavior

Multi-Center Trial of a Standardized Battery of Tests of Mouse Behavior. A project funded by the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research via NIAAA and NIDA. Investigators : John Crabbe, Doug Wahlsten, Bruce Dudek Web site: http://www.albany.edu/psy/obssr. Staff.

chibale
Download Presentation

Multi-Center Trial of a Standardized Battery of Tests of Mouse Behavior

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Multi-Center Trial of a Standardized Battery of Tests of Mouse Behavior A project funded by the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research via NIAAA and NIDA. Investigators: John Crabbe, Doug Wahlsten, Bruce Dudek Web site: http://www.albany.edu/psy/obssr

  2. Staff

  3. Acknowledgements • OBSSR, NIAAA, NIDA for funding. • R.H. Kant and Accuscan for generously providing activity monitor and RotaRod apparatus. • Diligent postdocs, graduate students and institutional staff at our three institutions who went to heroic efforts to ensure that the study could start on time in a coordinated fashion.

  4. Goals of the Study • Evaluate mouse phenotypes at three sites using simultaneously performed identical procedures. • Establish the feasibility of implementing precise test protocols in multiple sites. • We sought to maximize standardization of protocols across site, often to a level of minor nuance, and at times perhaps not the “best” methodology possible for a task. • Examine stability of strain differences across three laboratories, shipping status, and gender. • Evaluate a broad-based behavioral test battery. • Generate a roadmap for future studies designed to focus on narrower domains of phenotypes.

  5. Genotype (Stock) A/J C57BL/6J BALB/cByJ DBA/2J 129/SvEvTac 5HT1B++ 5HT1B-- B6D2F2 Site Albany Edmonton Portland GROUPING FACTORS • Sex • Female • Male • Shipping Status • Bred In House • Shipped

  6. Design Specifications Thus the design is an 8 x 3 x 2 x 2 factorial. 96 cells. Targeted n=4/cell (384 planned), based on power analysis. 379 tested, 378 completely. No empty cells

  7. Replications • Testing protocol required replications. • Two replications yielded n=64 per site per replication. This produced a target of n=2 per cell across all cells in each replication. • One site ran a third replication to fill some cells (n=6).

  8. Chronology • Breeding stock received 12/2/97 • Matings set 1/13/98 • First litters born ~ 2/1/98 • Shipped mice for testing received 3/18/98 to 4/2/98 • First replication begun 4/20/98 • Second replication begun 4/27/98 • Third replication begun 5/4/98 (Edmonton Only) • Age at testing initiation: ~ 65-75 days

  9. Features of Husbandry Equated Across Labs Four time frames may differ in the requirements to some extent. 1. After arrival from supplier but before mating: housed with same sex 2. Mated pairs before and after delivery of litter 3. Weaned offspring prior to the start of behavioral testing 4. During Behavioral Testing After arrival of Breeding Stock Food Purina 5001 (4.5% fat) Bedding Bed-O-Cob 1/4" Nesting material None Cage top Stainless steel bars (passive filter top in Portland) Animal marking nil Animal weighing nil Mice/cage 4 or 5 maximum Lights on/off 0600/1800 Cage changing weekly

  10. Features of Husbandry Equated Across Labs, cont’d Mated pairs (items the same as after arrival are not repeated) Food Purina 5020 (9% fat) Nesting material 1 Nestlet Marking none Weighing at mating Mice/cage 1 female, 1 male Male present with litter? Yes; postpartum pregnancy allowed Inspection of new litter Count live and dead pups; remove dead, put live in nest Culling of newborns Remove only the obvious runts for ethanasia Cage changing Weekly Cage changing with litter Do not disturb cage until litter is 4 days old or younger; then clean cage with fresh nestlet

  11. Features of Husbandry Equated Across Labs, cont’d Weaned offspring Age at weaning Aim for 21 days; may be ± 1 day on weekend Nesting material None Food Purina 5001 Mice/cage Same sex, 4 or 5 maximum Marking nil Body Weight Record at weaning to closest .5g During behavioral testing Mice/cage 2 (housed 2 weeks prior to testing; random culling) Nesting material None Marking Sharpie pen on tail Weighing prior to day 5 activity test Handling Hand with surgical glove Cage changing After Day 5 testing

  12. Targeted Phenotypic Domains • Reproductive performance • Basic growth characteristics • Behavioral test battery • Basic neuroanatomical characteristics

  13. Variables Matched Across Site • Chronology for breeding stock receipt, matings, receipt of shipped mice, and test battery beginning dates. • Food, bedding, light cycle. • Details of Behavioral Test Battery Protocols! • Apparatus.

  14. Behavioral and Other Phenotypes • Locomotor Activity. 15 min test in Accuscan Digiscan system. • Elevated Plus maze. 5 min test. • Rota-rod coordination test. • Water Maze escape task. • Cocaine-stimulated locomotor activity. • Alcohol preference. • Neuroanatomical indices.

  15. Test Battery Sequence • Day 1: Baseline Locomotor Activity in Accuscan Digiscan automated activity monitors. (15 min test) • Day 2: Elevated plus maze test. (5 min test) • Day 3: Rota-rod test. (10 trials) • Day 4: Water Escape test. (8 trials) • Day 5: Cocaine-treatment activity test. (15 min test; 20 mg/kg, ip) • Day 6-7: Null • Day 8: Begin alcohol drinking test. (6 days)

  16. Protocol Implementation • Morning and afternoon sets of n=32 mice (16 cages) were run to complete the n=64/replication. • Semi-blind testing was employed by using cage numbers rather than strain identity as identifiers (caveat regarding coat color). • Testing order (which mouse genotype,sex, etc) was based on a constrained randomized sequence (although cage-pair mates were always tested in adjacent positions). This sequence varied across site. • Same daily test routine for each squad of 2 or 4 mice was used on the first 5 tests. • Documents describing protocols are available on the web site.

  17. Current Status of Data Analysis • Database for combined sites constructed, and web site created for data sharing. • Database includes data from baseline activity test, rota-rod test, water escape test, cocaine activity test, elevated plus maze test, alcohol preference, and adult body weights. • Statistical analyses of all tasks has been done and figures are available on the web site. • An initial report of findings is published: Crabbe, Wahlsten and Dudek (1999) Science, 284:1670-1674 (June 4 issue).

  18. General Conclusions From Present State of Data Analysis • For the baseline activity, relatively good stability of the genetic differences is seen across site with virtually no meaningful influence of shipping status. • Cocaine stimulated activity does vary considerably across site, but in an interactive manner with genotype. • Strong patterns of genetic influence in the water escape task are only partly consistent across site and shipping status. • Strain differences in alcohol consumption are relatively stable across site although a main effect of site is present. • Elevated Plus Maze indices show considerably less cross site stability. • The cross-site stability of strain differences is thus likely to be highly task-dependent.

  19. Highlights of Lessons from the Multi-Center Standardization Trial 1. High quality data can be obtained simultaneously in several labs. 2. Logistics are much more challenging than for the typical study done in one lab. 3. Principal glitches can be avoided in future studies. 4. Anomalies or accidents afflicting one lab do not undermine the entire study. 5. a. A large advantage is conferred by the use of automated data collection. b. Testing $2 mice at one time is very difficult without automated apparatus. c. Video tape recording for later scoring from tapes is a markedly inferior method.

  20. Highlights of Lessons from the Multi-Center Standardization Trial (cont’d) 6. We need to know more about the reliability of each test in order to plan future studies. 7. We need to standardize the stimulus surroundings for each test, not just the apparatus. 8. We should decide in advance what statistical analysis program will be used. 9. In the future, we should strive for optimal rather than convenience solutions.

  21. Summary and Implications • Some behavioral phenotypes can be expected to show stable, genetically influenced, characteristics. • The reasons that some phenotypes may not show as much stability across strains/genotypes are potentially many: • Method Variance and Measurment Reliability should play a role. Less reliable indices should be less stable. Requirement for larger N’s. • Genotype x Environment Interaction may exist. Uncontrolled environmental variation may exist and gene expression may vary with it. Both additive and non-additive sources of GxE may exist. As is often the case in behavior genetics, identification of the sources of environmental influence would be necessary before any real understanding of GxE can be expected. • Site specific QTL??? It is theoretically possible that non-identical genes are influential at different sites (read environments). This kind of GxE would be accessible only in the context of gene mapping studies.

  22. Summary and Implications, cont’d. • Are Behavioral Phenotypes Different? • Behavioral Scientists are keenly aware of the need for careful control of protocols and standardization of methods, and influences of extraneous variables. • Single tasks are not likely to provide strong characterization of complex psychological constructs. E.g., plus maze = anxiety??? • Some patterns of genetic influence on behavior can be highly stable. For example, body weight showed larger effect sizes for the strain by site interaction than locomotor activity and ethanol consumption. Similar findings exist for neuroanatomical measures.

  23. Arrangement of apparatus in one lab

More Related