↓ Skip to main content

Mixed-strain housing for female C57BL/6, DBA/2, and BALB/c mice: validating a split-plot design that promotes refinement and reduction

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Mixed-strain housing for female C57BL/6, DBA/2, and BALB/c mice: validating a split-plot design that promotes refinement and reduction
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12874-016-0113-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Walker, Carole Fureix, Rupert Palme, Jonathan A. Newman, Jamie Ahloy Dallaire, Georgia Mason

Abstract

Inefficient experimental designs are common in animal-based biomedical research, wasting resources and potentially leading to unreplicable results. Here we illustrate the intrinsic statistical power of split-plot designs, wherein three or more sub-units (e.g. individual subjects) differing in a variable of interest (e.g. genotype) share an experimental unit (e.g. a cage or litter) to which a treatment is applied (e.g. a drug, diet, or cage manipulation). We also empirically validate one example of such a design, mixing different mouse strains -- C57BL/6, DBA/2, and BALB/c -- within cages varying in degree of enrichment. As well as boosting statistical power, no other manipulations are needed for individual identification if co-housed strains are differentially pigmented, so also sparing mice from stressful marking procedures. The validation involved housing 240 females from weaning to 5 months of age in single- or mixed- strain trios, in cages allocated to enriched or standard treatments. Mice were screened for a range of 26 commonly-measured behavioural, physiological and haematological variables. Living in mixed-strain trios did not compromise mouse welfare (assessed via corticosterone metabolite output, stereotypic behaviour, signs of aggression, and other variables). It also did not alter the direction or magnitude of any strain- or enrichment-typical difference across the 26 measured variables, or increase variance in the data: indeed variance was significantly decreased by mixed- strain housing. Furthermore, using Monte Carlo simulations to quantify the statistical power benefits of this approach over a conventional design demonstrated that for our effect sizes, the split- plot design would require significantly fewer mice (under half in most cases) to achieve a power of 80 %. Mixed-strain housing allows several strains to be tested at once, and potentially refines traditional marking practices for research mice. Furthermore, it dramatically illustrates the enhanced statistical power of split-plot designs, allowing many fewer animals to be used. More powerful designs can also increase the chances of replicable findings, and increase the ability of small-scale studies to yield significant results. Using mixed-strain housing for female C57BL/6, DBA/2 and BALB/c mice is therefore an effective, efficient way to promote both refinement and the reduction of animal-use in research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 3%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 14 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#18,149,825
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#1,719
of 2,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,859
of 399,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Research Methodology
#25
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.