Improving laboratory animal genetic reporting: LAG-R guidelines.

Animals Animals, Laboratory / genetics Guidelines as Topic Reproducibility of Results Research Design Animal Experimentation / standards Biomedical Research / standards

Journal

Nature communications

ISSN: 2041-1723

Titre abrégé: Nat Commun

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101528555

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Jul 2024

Historique:

received: 12 02 2024

accepted: 05 06 2024

medline: 3 7 2024

pubmed: 3 7 2024

entrez: 2 7 2024

Statut: epublish

Résumé

The biomedical research community addresses reproducibility challenges in animal studies through standardized nomenclature, improved experimental design, transparent reporting, data sharing, and centralized repositories. The ARRIVE guidelines outline documentation standards for laboratory animals in experiments, but genetic information is often incomplete. To remedy this, we propose the Laboratory Animal Genetic Reporting (LAG-R) framework. LAG-R aims to document animals' genetic makeup in scientific publications, providing essential details for replication and appropriate model use. While verifying complete genetic compositions may be impractical, better reporting and validation efforts enhance reliability of research. LAG-R standardization will bolster reproducibility, peer review, and overall scientific rigor.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-49439-y PMID: 38956430

pubmed: 38956430

doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-49439-y

pii: 10.1038/s41467-024-49439-y

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

5574

Subventions

Organisme : Agence Nationale de la Recherche (French National Research Agency)

ID : ANR-10-INBS-07

Investigateurs

Atsushi Yoshiki (A)

Chi-Kuang Wang (CK)

Jacqueline Marvel (J)

Ana Zarubica (A)

Sara Wells (S)

Jason Heaney (J)

Sara Wells (S)

Ian F Korf (IF)

Cathleen Cat Lutz (CC)

Andrew J Kueh (AJ)

Paul Q Thomas (PQ)

Ruth M Arkell (RM)

Graham J Mann (GJ)

Informations de copyright

Références

Baker, M. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533, 452–454 (2016).

pubmed: 27225100 doi: 10.1038/533452a

Lloyd, K., Franklin, C., Lutz, C. & Magnuson, T. Reproducibility: Use mouse biobanks or lose them. Nature 522, 151–153 (2015).

pubmed: 26062496 pmcid: 4636083 doi: 10.1038/522151a

Dessimoz, C., Škunca N. The Gene Ontology Handbook Vol. 1446 (Springer, New York, NY, 2017).

Alliance of Genome Resources Consortium et al. Harmonizing model organism data in the Alliance of Genome Resources. Genetics 220, iyac022 (2022).

doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyac022

Smith, A. J., Clutton, R. E., Lilley, E., Hansen, K. E. A. & Brattelid, T. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab. Anim. 52, 135–141 (2018).

pubmed: 28771074 doi: 10.1177/0023677217724823

Percie du Sert, N. et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000410 (2020).

pubmed: 32663219 pmcid: 7360023 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410

the FAIRsharing Community et al. FAIRsharing as a community approach to standards, repositories and policies. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 358–367 (2019).

doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0080-8

Percie du Sert, N. et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020).

pubmed: 32663221 pmcid: 7360025 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411

Sittig, L. J. et al. Genetic background limits generalizability of genotype–phenotype relationships. Neuron 91, 1253–1259 (2016).

pubmed: 27618673 pmcid: 5033712 doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.08.013

Doetschman, T. Influence of genetic background on genetically engineered mouse phenotypes. In Gene Knockout Protocols Vol. 530 (eds. Wurst, W. & Kühn, R.) 423–433 (Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2009).

Strobel, M. C., Reinholdt, L. G., Malcolm, R. D. & Pritchett-Corning, K. Genetic monitoring of laboratory mice and rats. In Laboratory Animal Medicine. (eds Fox, J. G. et al.) 1403–1416 (Elsevier, 2015).

Simon, M. M. et al. A comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strains. Genome Biol. 14, R82 (2013).

pubmed: 23902802 pmcid: 4053787 doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-7-r82

Voelkl, B. et al. Reproducibility of animal research in light of biological variation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 384–393 (2020).

pubmed: 32488205 doi: 10.1038/s41583-020-0313-3

Zeldovich, L. Genetic drift: the ghost in the genome. Lab Anim. 46, 255–257 (2017).

doi: 10.1038/laban.1275

Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M. & Simcoe, T. S. The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002165 (2015).

pubmed: 26057340 pmcid: 4461318 doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165

Jacquot, S., Chartoire, N., Piguet, F., Hérault, Y. & Pavlovic, G. Optimizing PCR for mouse genotyping: recommendations for reliable, rapid, cost effective, robust and adaptable to high‐throughput genotyping protocol for any type of mutation. Curr. Protoc. Mouse Biol. 9, e65 1–28 (2019).

Russell, W. M. S. & Burch, R. L. The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. (Methuen, 1959).

Engle, S. HPRT-APRT-deficient mice are not a model for Lesch–Nyhan syndrome. Hum. Mol. Genet. 5, 1607–1610 (1996).

pubmed: 8894695 doi: 10.1093/hmg/5.10.1607

Meek, S. et al. Reduced levels of dopamine and altered metabolism in brains of HPRT knock-out rats: a new rodent model of Lesch–Nyhan Disease. Sci. Rep. 6, 25592 (2016).

pubmed: 27185277 pmcid: 4869022 doi: 10.1038/srep25592

Bilovocky, N. A., Romito-DiGiacomo, R. R., Murcia, C. L., Maricich, S. M. & Herrup, K. Factors in the genetic background suppress the Engrailed-1 cerebellar phenotype. J. Neurosci. 23, 5105–5112 (2003).

pubmed: 12832534 pmcid: 6741147 doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.23-12-05105.2003

Axelsson, E. et al. The genetic consequences of dog breed formation—accumulation of deleterious genetic variation and fixation of mutations associated with myxomatous mitral valve disease in cavalier King Charles spaniels. PLoS Genet. 17, e1009726 (2021).

pubmed: 34473707 pmcid: 8412370 doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009726

Sigmon, J. S. et al. Content and performance of the MiniMUGA genotyping array: a new tool to improve rigor and reproducibility in mouse research. Genetics 216, 905–930 (2020).

pubmed: 33067325 pmcid: 7768238 doi: 10.1534/genetics.120.303596

Barbaric, I. et al. An ENU-induced mutation in the Ankrd11 gene results in an osteopenia-like phenotype in the mouse mutant Yoda. Physiol. Genom. 32, 311–321 (2008).

doi: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00116.2007

De Angelis, M. H. et al. Genome-wide, large-scale production of mutant mice by ENU mutagenesis. Nat. Genet. 25, 444–447 (2000).

doi: 10.1038/78146

Andersson, L. Molecular consequences of animal breeding. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 23, 295–301 (2013).

pubmed: 23601626 doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2013.02.014

Ciepłoch, A., Rutkowska, K., Oprządek, J. & Poławska, E. Genetic disorders in beef cattle: a review. Genes Genom. 39, 461–471 (2017).

doi: 10.1007/s13258-017-0525-8

Bunton-Stasyshyn, R. K., Codner, G. F. & Teboul, L. Screening and validation of genome-edited animals. Lab Anim. 56, 69–82 (2022).

pubmed: 34192966 doi: 10.1177/00236772211016922

Marx, V. Method of the year: long-read sequencing. Nat. Methods 20, 6–11 (2023).

pubmed: 36635542 doi: 10.1038/s41592-022-01730-w

De Coster, W. & Van Broeckhoven, C. Newest methods for detecting structural variations. Trends Biotechnol. 37, 973–982 (2019).

pubmed: 30902345 doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2019.02.003

Chan, S. et al. Structural variation detection and analysis using bionano optical mapping. In Copy Number Variants Vol. 1833 (ed. Bickhart, D. M.) 193–203 (Springer, New York, 2018).

Benavides, F. et al. Genetic quality assurance and genetic monitoring of laboratory mice and rats: FELASA Working Group Report. Lab. Anim. 54, 135–148 (2020).

pubmed: 31431136 doi: 10.1177/0023677219867719

Cagan, A. et al. Somatic mutation rates scale with lifespan across mammals. Nature 604, 517–524 (2022).

pubmed: 35418684 pmcid: 9021023 doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04618-z

Milholland, B. et al. Differences between germline and somatic mutation rates in humans and mice. Nat. Commun. 8, 15183 (2017).

pubmed: 28485371 pmcid: 5436103 doi: 10.1038/ncomms15183

Lynch, M. Evolution of the mutation rate. Trends Genet. 26, 345–352 (2010).

pubmed: 20594608 pmcid: 2910838 doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2010.05.003

Fox, J.G. et al. The Mouse in Biomedical Research (Elsevier, Amsterdam; Boston, 2007).

Rogers, J. Genomic resources for rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Mamm. Genome 33, 91–99 (2022).

pubmed: 34999909 pmcid: 8742695 doi: 10.1007/s00335-021-09922-z

Vaysse, A. et al. Identification of genomic regions associated with phenotypic variation between dog breeds using selection mapping. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002316 (2011).

pubmed: 22022279 pmcid: 3192833 doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002316

Matsuda, K. PCR-based detection methods for single-nucleotide polymorphism or mutation. In Advances in Clinical Chemistry Vol. 80 45–72 (Elsevier, 2017).

Rawle, D. J. et al. Widespread discrepancy in Nnt genotypes and genetic backgrounds complicates granzyme A and other knockout mouse studies. eLife 11, e70207 (2022).

pubmed: 35119362 pmcid: 8816380 doi: 10.7554/eLife.70207

Kelmenson, P. How to Refresh Your Mutant or Transgenic Mouse Strains https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2018/april/how-to-refresh-your-mutant-or-transgenic-mouse-strains (2018).

Trevarrow, B. & Robison, B. Genetic backgrounds, standard lines, and husbandry of zebrafish. Methods Cell Biol. 77, 599–616 (2004).

pubmed: 15602934 doi: 10.1016/S0091-679X(04)77032-6

Varga, Z. M. Aquaculture, husbandry, and shipping at the Zebrafish International Resource Center. Methods Cell Biol. 135, 509–534 (2016).

pubmed: 27443942 doi: 10.1016/bs.mcb.2016.01.007

Martins, S. et al. Toward an integrated zebrafish health management program supporting cancer and neuroscience research. Zebrafish 13, S47–S55 (2016).

pubmed: 26959533 doi: 10.1089/zeb.2015.1198

Liang, Q., Conte, N., Skarnes, W. C. & Bradley, A. Extensive genomic copy number variation in embryonic stem cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17453–17456 (2008).

pubmed: 18988746 pmcid: 2582305 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0805638105

Lintott, L. G. & Nutter, L. M. J. Genetic and Molecular Quality Control of Genetically Engineered Mice. In Transgenesis Vol. 2631 (ed. Saunders, T. L.) 53–101 (Springer US, New York, NY, 2023).

Goodwin, L. O. et al. Large-scale discovery of mouse transgenic integration sites reveals frequent structural variation and insertional mutagenesis. Genome Res. 29, 494–505 (2019).

pubmed: 30659012 pmcid: 6396414 doi: 10.1101/gr.233866.117

Burgio, G. & Teboul, L. Anticipating and Identifying Collateral Damage in Genome Editing. Trends Genet. 36, 905–914 (2020).

pubmed: 33039248 pmcid: 7658041 doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2020.09.011

Peterson, K. A. et al. Whole genome analysis for 163 gRNAs in Cas9-edited mice reveals minimal off-target activity. Commun. Biol. 6, 626 (2023).

pubmed: 37301944 pmcid: 10257658 doi: 10.1038/s42003-023-04974-0

Anderson, K. R. et al. CRISPR off-target analysis in genetically engineered rats and mice. Nat. Methods 15, 512–514 (2018).

pubmed: 29786090 pmcid: 6558654 doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0011-5

Manghwar, H. et al. CRISPR/Cas systems in genome editing: methodologies and tools for sgRNA design, off‐target evaluation, and strategies to mitigate off‐target effects. Adv. Sci. 7, 1902312 (2020).

doi: 10.1002/advs.201902312

CRISPR off-targets: a reassessment. Nat Methods 15, 229–230 (2018).

Norris, A. L. et al. Template plasmid integration in germline genome-edited cattle. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 163–164 (2020).

pubmed: 32034391 doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0394-6

Leibowitz, M. L. et al. Chromothripsis as an on-target consequence of CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing. Nat. Genet. 53, 895–905 (2021).

pubmed: 33846636 pmcid: 8192433 doi: 10.1038/s41588-021-00838-7

Bertelsen, B. et al. A germline chromothripsis event stably segregating in 11 individuals through three generations. Genet. Med. 18, 494–500 (2016).

pubmed: 26312826 doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.112

Nurk, S. et al. The complete sequence of a human genome. Science 376, 44–53 (2022).

pubmed: 35357919 pmcid: 9186530 doi: 10.1126/science.abj6987

Schoch, C. L. et al. NCBI Taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database 2020, baaa062 (2020).

pubmed: 32761142 pmcid: 7408187 doi: 10.1093/database/baaa062

Tweedie, S. et al. Genenames.org: the HGNC and VGNC resources in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D939–D946 (2021).

pubmed: 33152070 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa980

McCarthy, F. M. et al. The case for standardizing gene nomenclature in vertebrates. Nature 614, E31–E32 (2023).

pubmed: 36792746 pmcid: 9931569 doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05633-w

Wells, D. J. et al. Assessing the welfare of genetically altered mice. Lab Anim. 40, 111–114 (2006).

pubmed: 16600070 doi: 10.1258/002367706776318971

Lalonde, R., Filali, M. & Strazielle, C. SHIRPA as a neurological screening battery in mice. Curr. Protoc. 1, e135 1–30 (2021).

Patange, S. & Maragh, S. Fire burn and cauldron bubble: what is in your genome editing brew? Biochemistry https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biochem.2c00431 (2022).