Evidence mapPaperPMID 39639104Full record

ArticleLab animal2025

Timing of standard chow exposure determines the variability of mouse phenotypic outcomes and gut microbiota profile.

Megan M Knuth, Carolina Vieira Campos, Kirsten Smith, Elizabeth K Hutchins, Shantae Lewis, Mary York, Lyndon M Coghill, Craig Franklin, Amanda J MacFarlane, Aaron C Ericsson and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lab animal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Infection and immunity · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Megan M KnuthDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8697-6036
Carolina Vieira CamposDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Kirsten SmithDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Elizabeth K HutchinsDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Shantae LewisDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Mary YorkUniversity of Missouri Bioinformatics and Analytics Core, Bond Life Sciences Center, Columbia, MO, USA.
Lyndon M CoghillUniversity of Missouri Bioinformatics and Analytics Core, Bond Life Sciences Center, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6258-9194
Craig FranklinDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9198-867X
Amanda J MacFarlaneTexas A&M Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Evidence Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
Aaron C EricssonDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3053-7269
Terry MagnusonDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Folami IderaabdullahDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. folami@email.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5754-2615

Funding

UNC-CH CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH &SUSCEPTIBILITYP30ES010126 · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · 2001 to 2025
$6.9M
UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CLINICAL NUTRITION RESEARCH UNITP30DK056350 · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · 1999 to 2025
$5.9M
Resource Core - A Carolina Center to Characterize and Maintain Mutant MiceU42OD010924 · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · 2025 to 2025
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA217824NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056350NIDDK NIH HHS R21 DK122242NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES010126NIGMS NIH HHS R25 GM089569NIH HHS U42 OD010924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standard chow diets influence reproducibility in animal model experiments because chows have different nutrient compositions, which can independently influence phenotypes. However, there is little evidence of the role of timing in the extent of variability caused by chow exposure. Here we measured the impact of different diets (5V5M, 5V0G, 2920X and 5058) and timing of exposure (adult exposure (AE), lifetime exposure (LE) and developmental exposure (DE)) on growth and development, metabolic health indicators and gut bacterial microbiota profiles across genetically identical C57BL/6J mice. Diet drove differences in macro- and micronutrient intake for all exposure models. AE had no effect on phenotypic outcomes. However, LE mice exhibited significant sex-dependent diet effects on growth, body weight and body composition. LE effects were mostly absent in the DE model, where mice were exposed to chow differences only from conception to weaning. Both AE and LE models exhibited similar diet-driven beta diversity profiles for the gut bacterial microbiota, with 5058 diet driving the most distinct profile. However, compared with AE, LE effects on beta diversity were sex dependent, and LE mice exhibited nine times more differentially abundant bacterial genera, the majority of which were inversely affected by 2920X and 5058 diets. Our findings demonstrate that LE to different chow diets has the greatest impact on the reproducibility of several experimental measures commonly used in preclinical mouse model studies. Importantly, weaning mice from different diets onto the same diet for maturation may be an effective way to reduce unwanted phenotypic variability among experimental models.

Indexed as

DietGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMice, Inbred C57BLAnimal FeedAnimalsFemaleMaleMicePhenotypeTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID39639104
PMCPMC12097749

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.