Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38151528›Full record

ArticleLab animal2024

Using mice from different breeding sites fails to improve replicability of results from single-laboratory studies.

Ivana Jaric, Bernhard Voelkl, Irmgard Amrein, David P Wolfer, Janja Novak, Carlotta Detotto, Ulrike Weber-Stadlbauer, Urs Meyer, Francesca Manuella, Isabelle M Mansuy and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lab animal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Reconfiguration of brain-wide neural activity after early life adversity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Reconfiguration of brain-wide neural activity after early life adversity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Ivana JaricAnimal Welfare Division, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. ivana.jaric@unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-8818-2974
Bernhard VoelklAnimal Welfare Division, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Irmgard AmreinInstitute of Anatomy, Division of Functional Neuroanatomy, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
David P WolferInstitute of Anatomy, Division of Functional Neuroanatomy, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Janja NovakAnimal Welfare Division, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0001-9399-0458
Carlotta DetottoCentral Animal Facilities, Experimental Animal Center, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Ulrike Weber-StadlbauerInstitute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Vetsuisse Faculty and Center of Neuroscience Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-5278-9993
Urs MeyerInstitute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Vetsuisse Faculty and Center of Neuroscience Zürich, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7244-0345
Francesca ManuellaLaboratory of Neuroepigenetics, Brain Research Institute, Medical Faculty, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Isabelle M MansuyLaboratory of Neuroepigenetics, Brain Research Institute, Medical Faculty, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7785-5371
Hanno WürbelAnimal Welfare Division, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. hanno.wuerbel@unibe.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-2934-3010

Funding

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Swiss National Science Foundation) 310030_179254
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Theoretical and empirical evidence indicates that low external validity due to rigorous standardization of study populations is a cause of poor replicability in animal research. Here we report a multi-laboratory study aimed at investigating whether heterogenization of study populations by using animals from different breeding sites increases the replicability of results from single-laboratory studies. We used male C57BL/6J mice from six different breeding sites to test a standardized against a heterogenized (HET) study design in six independent replicate test laboratories. For the standardized design, each laboratory ordered mice from a single breeding site (each laboratory from a different one), while for the HET design, each laboratory ordered proportionate numbers of mice from the five remaining breeding sites. To test our hypothesis, we assessed 14 outcome variables, including body weight, behavioral measures obtained from a single session on an elevated plus maze, and clinical blood parameters. Both breeding site and test laboratory affected variation in outcome variables, but the effect of test laboratory was more pronounced for most outcome variables. Moreover, heterogenization of study populations by breeding site (HET) did not reduce variation in outcome variables between test laboratories, which was most likely due to the fact that breeding site had only little effect on variation in outcome variables, thereby limiting the scope for HET to reduce between-lab variation. We conclude that heterogenization of study populations by breeding site has limited capacity for improving the replicability of results from single-laboratory animal studies.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationBehavior, AnimalAnimalsMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID38151528
PMCPMC10766513

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.