A comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strains

Michelle M. Simon(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Simon Greenaway(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Jacqueline K. White(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Helmut Fuchs(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Valérie Gailus‐Durner(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Sara Wells(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Tania Sorg(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Kim Wong(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Elodie Bedu(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Elizabeth J. Cartwright(University of Manchester), Romain Dacquin, Sophia Djebali, Jeanne Estabel(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Jochen Graw(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Neil J. Ingham(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Ian J. Jackson(Western General Hospital), Andreas Lengeling(Roslin Institute), Silvia Mandillo(Institute of Cell Biology and Neurobiology), Jacqueline Marvel, Hamid Méziane(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Frédéric Preitner(Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research), Oliver Puk(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Michel J. Roux(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), David J. Adams(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Sarah Atkins(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Abdel Ayadi(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Lore Becker(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Andrew Blake(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Debra Brooker(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Heather Cater(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Marie‐France Champy(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Roy Combe(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Petr Danecek(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Armida Di Fenza(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Hilary Gates(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Anna-Karin Gerdin(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Elisabetta Golini(Institute of Cell Biology and Neurobiology), John M. Hancock(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Wolfgang Hans(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Sabine M. Hölter(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Tertius Hough(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Pierre Jurdic, Thomas Keane(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Hugh W. Morgan(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Werner Müller(University of Manchester), Frauke Neff(Helmholtz Zentrum München), George Nicholson(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Bastian Pasche(University of Lausanne), Laura-Anne Roberson(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Jan Rozman(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Mark Sanderson(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Luís Santos(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Mohammed Selloum(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Carl Shannon(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Anne Southwell(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Glauco P. Tocchini‐Valentini(Institute of Cell Biology and Neurobiology), Valerie E. Vancollie(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Henrik Westerberg(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Wolfgang Wurst(German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases), Min Zi(University of Manchester), Binnaz Yalcin(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Ramiro Ramírez‐Solis(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Karen P. Steel(Wellcome Sanger Institute), Ann‐Marie Mallon(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell), Martin Hrabě de Angelis(Helmholtz Zentrum München), Yann Hérault(Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), Steve D. M. Brown(Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell)
Genome biology
July 31, 2013
Cited by 524Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The mouse inbred line C57BL/6J is widely used in mouse genetics and its genome has been incorporated into many genetic reference populations. More recently large initiatives such as the International Knockout Mouse Consortium (IKMC) are using the C57BL/6N mouse strain to generate null alleles for all mouse genes. Hence both strains are now widely used in mouse genetics studies. Here we perform a comprehensive genomic and phenotypic analysis of the two strains to identify differences that may influence their underlying genetic mechanisms. RESULTS: We undertake genome sequence comparisons of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N to identify SNPs, indels and structural variants, with a focus on identifying all coding variants. We annotate 34 SNPs and 2 indels that distinguish C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N coding sequences, as well as 15 structural variants that overlap a gene. In parallel we assess the comparative phenotypes of the two inbred lines utilizing the EMPReSSslim phenotyping pipeline, a broad based assessment encompassing diverse biological systems. We perform additional secondary phenotyping assessments to explore other phenotype domains and to elaborate phenotype differences identified in the primary assessment. We uncover significant phenotypic differences between the two lines, replicated across multiple centers, in a number of physiological, biochemical and behavioral systems. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N demonstrates a range of phenotypic differences that have the potential to impact upon penetrance and expressivity of mutational effects in these strains. Moreover, the sequence variants we identify provide a set of candidate genes for the phenotypic differences observed between the two strains.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis