Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

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

Michelle Simon 1 Simon Greenaway 1 Jacqueline White 2 Helmut Fuchs 3 Valérie Gailus-Durner 3 Sara Wells 1 Tania Sorg 4 Kim Wong 2 Elodie Bedu 4 Elizabeth Cartwright 5 Romain Dacquin 6 Sophia Djebali 6, 7 Jeanne Estabel 2 Jochen Graw 3 Neil Ingham 2 Ian Jackson 8 Andreas Lengeling 9 Silvia Mandillo 10 Jacqueline Marvel 6, 7 Hamid Meziane 4 Frédéric Preitner 11 Oliver Puk 3 Michel Roux 4 David Adams 2 Sarah Atkins 1 Abdel Ayadi 4 Lore Becker 3 Andrew Blake 1 Debra Brooker 1 Heather Cater 1 Marie-France Champy 4 Roy Combe 4 Petr Danecek 2 Armida Di Fenza 1 Hilary Gates 1 Anna-Karin Gerdin 2 Elisabetta Golini 10 John Hancock 1 Wolfgang Hans 3 Sabine Hölter 3 Tertius Hough 1 Pierre Jurdic 6 Thomas Keane 2 Hugh Morgan 1 Werner Müller 12 Frauke Neff 3 George Nicholson 1 Bastian Pasche 13 Laura-Anne Roberson 2 Jan Rozman 3 Mark Sanderson 2 Luis Santos 1 Mohammed Selloum 4 Carl Shannon 2 Anne Southwell 1 Glauco Tocchini-Valentini 10 Valerie Vancollie 2 Henrik Westerberg 1 Wolfgang Wurst 3, 14, 15, 16 Min Zi 5 Binnaz Yalcin 4, 17 Ramiro Ramirez-Solis 2 Karen Steel 2 Ann-Marie Mallon 1 Martin de Angelis 1 Yann Herault 4 Steve Brown 1, *
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.
Complete list of metadatas

https://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-00874969
Contributor : Ed. Bmc <>
Submitted on : Sunday, October 20, 2013 - 6:12:26 AM
Last modification on : Saturday, May 16, 2020 - 3:44:49 AM
Long-term archiving on: : Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 2:25:12 AM

Identifiers

Citation

Michelle Simon, Simon Greenaway, Jacqueline White, Helmut Fuchs, Valérie Gailus-Durner, et al.. A comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strains.. Genome Biology, BioMed Central, 2013, 14 (7), pp.R82. ⟨10.1186/gb-2013-14-7-r82⟩. ⟨inserm-00874969⟩

Share

Metrics

Record views

1682

Files downloads

1213