↓ Skip to main content

Robust and Sensitive Analysis of Mouse Knockout Phenotypes

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Robust and Sensitive Analysis of Mouse Knockout Phenotypes
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0052410
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha A. Karp, David Melvin, Richard F. Mott

Abstract

A significant challenge of in-vivo studies is the identification of phenotypes with a method that is robust and reliable. The challenge arises from practical issues that lead to experimental designs which are not ideal. Breeding issues, particularly in the presence of fertility or fecundity problems, frequently lead to data being collected in multiple batches. This problem is acute in high throughput phenotyping programs. In addition, in a high throughput environment operational issues lead to controls not being measured on the same day as knockouts. We highlight how application of traditional methods, such as a Student's t-Test or a 2-way ANOVA, in these situations give flawed results and should not be used. We explore the use of mixed models using worked examples from Sanger Mouse Genome Project focusing on Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry data for the analysis of mouse knockout data and compare to a reference range approach. We show that mixed model analysis is more sensitive and less prone to artefacts allowing the discovery of subtle quantitative phenotypes essential for correlating a gene's function to human disease. We demonstrate how a mixed model approach has the additional advantage of being able to include covariates, such as body weight, to separate effect of genotype from these covariates. This is a particular issue in knockout studies, where body weight is a common phenotype and will enhance the precision of assigning phenotypes and the subsequent selection of lines for secondary phenotyping. The use of mixed models with in-vivo studies has value not only in improving the quality and sensitivity of the data analysis but also ethically as a method suitable for small batches which reduces the breeding burden of a colony. This will reduce the use of animals, increase throughput, and decrease cost whilst improving the quality and depth of knowledge gained.

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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Professor 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Computer Science 4 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 7%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 9 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 03 September 2013.
All research outputs
#7,142,322
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#100,173
of 223,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,572
of 290,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,484
of 4,851 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 290,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,851 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.