The community site for and by
developmental and stem cell biologists

A day in the life of an embryonic stem cell lab!

Posted by , on 5 February 2016

Hi everyone! I’m Helena. Some of you may know me as the current intern here at the Node, but next week, I will go back to Alfonso Martínez Arias’ lab at the University of Cambridge to continue working on my PhD. Our lab is interested in cell fate and differentiation in the context of early development. In particular, we want to understand how interactions between signals and gene regulatory networks can generate tissues and organs from single cells.

In order to study all of these phenomena, we use embryonic stem cells (ESCs). Specifically, in my project I use mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs). mESCs are an incredibly useful system to study both cell fate decisions and early development because they are relatively easy to maintain in vitro and they are easy to access and observe; much easier than studying early development in vivo where the embryo is not always so easily accessible. Since mESCs are grown in culture, it is possible to achieve a very stringent control over the inputs the cells receive: I can control the medium the cells are grown in, the temperature, the atmosphere, what signals are applied to them and when, etc. You’d think that with so much control, I would know exactly what to expect every time I look into a tissue culture flask, but ESCs can be extremely finicky: one tiny change, for example a different batch of media or a slightly different density of cells can turn a good culture bad and throw weeks of work down the drain. Not to mention that different ESC lines all grow better in slightly different conditions, meaning each time I start using a new line, or when I culture several lines at a time, I have to adapt.  However, one of the major cell drawbacks to cell culture when studying development is that the structural and mechanical constraints of the embryo are missing. Despite these limitations, mESCs are a very powerful model to study how cells respond to their environment and the types of inputs that result in maintenance of or exit from pluripotency and differentiation to specific lineages.

Embryonic stem cells with Oct4 stain in cyan.tif
Mouse embryonic stem cell colony stained for Oct4 (in cyan). Oct4 is a transcription factor expressed in pluripotent cells, and it has roles in both the maintenance and the exit of pluripotency.

A typical day in an ESC lab varies considerably depending on whether one is running experiments or not, and also on the stage of the experiment. Since people in the lab are interested in how signals and gene networks interact, and because ESC culture is a model system that lends itself to producing large datasets (a single experiment can involve millions of mESCs, so potentially, millions of observations), the lab also does a lot of statistical analysis and modelling, alongside experiments. There are certain everyday tasks, however, that are fairly consistent throughout most stem cell labs, in particular tissue culture.

ESCs are fussy creatures, and require daily attention in order to maintain them in good condition in culture. This is because the function of ESCs in vivo is to divide, differentiate and build an embryo, so unless one grows them under certain conditions that promote pluripotency (i.e., with inhibitors of Wnt and FGF signalling), they are naturally inclined to differentiate. ESCs can be grown with or without feeder cells (a layer of cells underneath the ESCs that support growth, usually embryonic fibroblasts) and with our without antibiotics (to prevent infection). In our lab, we usually don’t use either: feeder cells can complicate both experiments and data analysis (for example in the case of RNA-seq experiments), and antibiotics can mask infections affecting growth and leading to contaminated experiments. ESCs are grown in flasks with cell medium, which needs to be changed every day. A lot of care has to be taken to avoid contamination: bacteria will happily grow in the nutrient-rich mESC media, eventually killing the cells. When we do have the occasional outbreak, tensions run high in the lab: a contaminated experiment is a useless one, and once a culture is contaminated, it’s not unusual for others to become infected. It also means that the tissue culture cabinets have to be meticulously cleaned with fungicide, ethanol and UV treatment – a job that no one is ever keen to take on. In our lab, we have to periodically remind each other of this, with varying degrees of severity in our reminders.

 

In addition to daily media changes, mESCs also need to be passaged every so often. In my case, I usually passage cells every two days, but this depends on the density of the cells in the flask. Passaging (or splitting) cells means transferring a proportion of the cells into a new flask. This is necessary in order to make sure the culture stays at the correct density, rather than becoming overgrown. This helps to maintain pluripotency and ensures that the cells are in optimal condition to perform experiments. mESCs are grown in adherent culture, meaning that the cells are attached to a matrix present on the surface of the culture flask – in our lab we use gelatin. The first thing we do when we passage cells is to apply trypsin to detach the cells from the surface of the flask. Then, we add medium to neutralise the trypsin and to dilute the cells. At this point, some people prefer to collect all the medium, spin down the cells and resuspend them before transferring into a new flask, in order to get a more accurate passage. I usually do this when I’m performing an experiment, or when I’m using a new cell line to be more accurate, but in the day to day, I will often skip this step and simply take a portion of the media I’ve used to neutralise the trypsin and transfer it to a new flask.

It is always fun to see someone new learning tissue culture. I’ve seen people with their whole heads inside a cabinet to avoid hitting the glass while working! This is obviously not the best approach for sterile technique. On one occasion, I even saw someone spray their cells with ethanol to avoid contamination. In all fairness, they achieved their goal of not contaminating their culture, although their cells died during the process! Learning tissue culture is mostly about learning good habits, although individual habits can vary from person to person. For example, in my lab, the direction pipettes are placed in the hood can be a point of contention between different people. The tissue culture cabinets can get pretty busy at times, but we all know (for the most part) when others like to do their tissue culture work, which helps with scheduling so we can all get our work done.

Once the cells have been taken care of, there are still plenty of things to do in the lab. mESC experiments usually involve growing cells in different conditions and analysing them at specific intervals. In our lab, the goal of experiments is usually to determine how the conditions used have affected the state of the cells. Has the cell exited pluripotency? If it has and it is differentiating, what is it differentiating into? How does this relate to what happens in the embryo? In order to answer these questions, we perform immunohistochemistry experiments, tracking experiments (time-lapse imaging of cell lines with fluorescent reporters for the expression of a gene of interest), flow cytometry analyses, RNA-seq, Western blots, etc. In addition, people in ESC labs spend considerable amounts of time generating new cell lines. These can be anything from cells with fluorescent reporters for the expression of genes of interest to knockout lines. As you have probably guessed, as a stem cell scientist you have to be in the lab every day when you are culturing cells. Sometimes I miss being able to go away for a weekend on a whim, but for the most part, I enjoy the flexibility. Working on the weekends can have its upsides: it means I’m not constrained by five-day experiments, and I can also use facilities that are usually busy during the week! Of course, everyone in the lab wants a weekend off once in a while, so we often “babysit” each other’s cells for a weekend. The nicer side to tissue culture is that, even though you have to do it every day, there will be days when the only thing to do is to change media – a process that can take as little as five minutes. With that done, you can spend the rest of the day catching up on reading, analysing data, imaging, and of course, on extended coffee/tea breaks chatting with your colleagues – about science of course!

 

Node day in the life new doodle squareThis post is part of a series on a day in the life of developmental biology labs working on different model organisms. You can read the introduction to the series here and read other posts in this series here.

 

 

Thumbs up (7 votes)
Loading...

Tags: , ,
Categories: Lab Life

Navigate the archive

Use our Advanced Search tool to search and filter posts by date, category, tags and authors.

3 year post-doctoral position in quantitative imaging of live embryos

Posted by , on 5 February 2016

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

We have an offering an exciting post-doctoral opportunity to image and quantitatively analyse tiny transparent ascidian embryos with a brand new multi view light sheet microscope. Apply now!

Advert Post-doc-SPIM-Lemaire-2016

Thumbs up (1 votes)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

Pluripotency in the mouse and beyond…

Posted by , on 4 February 2016

Preimplantation development establishes the founding cell population of the adult mammal in the epiblast. This naïve pluripotent state employs a unique hand of transcription factors to ensure epigenetic resetting and unbiased embryonic potential. In rodents, naïve pluripotency can be captured in the form of embryonic stem (ES) cells1-4, however other mammals have proven more refractory. This raises important questions such as why can naïve pluripotency in rodents be readily stabilised in culture and what is the difference to other mammals, in particular primates, like ourselves? Furthermore, it remains unclear which factors control the rise of naïve pluripotency in the embryo and how primates initiate lineage segregation.

 

Print

Figure 1: (A) Lineage-specific profiling of the emergence and progression of naïve pluripotency in the mouse embryo. (B) Diffusion map of lineage-specific RNA-seq samples from embryo, diapause and ESC. 

 

We started to tackle some of these questions by scrutinising the emergence and dissolution of naïve pluripotency in vivo5. Taking advantage of Pdgfr::GFP knock-in mice6, we performed lineage-specific RNA-seq from the 8-cell stage to the postimplantation embryo (Figure 1A). This allowed us to define dynamically expressed genes and to derive the transcriptional signature of each developmental stage. Naïve pluripotency markers (Klf2, Klf4, Esrrb, Tfcp2l1) are tightly restricted to preimplantation development, with the majority being expressed in both, embryonic and extraembryonic lineages. Epigenetic modifiers associated with a permissive chromatin state (Tet1, Tet2, Prdm14) were predominant during preimplantation development. These factors were exchanged for regulators mediating de novo DNA methylation (Dnmt1, Dnmt3a, Dnmt3b) and transition to more closed chromatin configuration (Hdac5, Hdac11) after implantation.

Naïve pluripotency is a transient state during normal development. We wanted to relate this to stable pluripotent states in vivo (diapaused epiblasts) and in vitro (ES-cells). Therefore, we profiled diapaused epiblasts and ES-cells using the same protocol. This was essential to allow direct comparison between the minute RNA quantities from the embryo and conventional bulk culture. Analysis of ES-cells and diapause in relation to normal development reveals near-complete conservation of the core transcriptional circuitry operative in the preimplantation epiblast (Figure 1B). Interestingly, diapaused epiblasts showed strong JAK-STAT and WNT signalling pathway component expression. It is tempting to speculate that the pathways evolved to mediate developmental arrest in vivo may facilitate capture of naïve pluripotency in vitro in mouse.

However, what are the differences between naïve pluripotency in the mouse embryo compared to other species, in particular primates? To address this, we turned to the common marmoset (Figure 2), a small New World monkey and emerging primate model for biomedical research7-9. ICMs of early, mid- and late marmoset blastocysts (Figure 3) were isolated by immunosurgery and profiled by RNA-seq. The majority of pluripotency-associated genes was expressed in the ICM and naive markers NANOG, KLF4 and TFCP2L1 colocalised in the putative epiblast. However, the absence of KLF2, NR0B1, FBXO15 and BMP4 suggests primate-specific adaptations in the wider pluripotency network.

FIG2-marmoset image

Figure 2: Challithrix jacchus (common marmoset )

 

The specific pathways driving lineage commitment and segregation in the primate embryo are poorly understood, therefore we assessed signalling pathway component expression during normal mouse development, diapause and in the primate ICM. RNA-seq datasets were intersected with annotated signalling pathways for side by side comparison between mouse and marmoset. Ready to use summaries are available to the community through our online resource:

Mouse and Marmoset Pathway Expression Atlas for Early Development

http://pathway-atlas.stemcells.cam.ac.uk/

 

Imaris Snapshot

Figure 3: Immunofluorescence of marmoset late blastocyst for NANOG (green), GATA6 (white), CDX2 (red) and DAPI (blue).

 

At the early ICM cell stage, we observed substantial differences in NODAL, FGF and WNT signalling. To test the functional relevance, mouse and marmoset morulae were cultured to the late blastocyst stage in the presence of specific inhibitors of these pathways. The experiments demonstrate that lineage specification in primate preimplantation development is regulated by both WNT and FGF pathways, in contrast to mouse, where FGF/ERK is the primary and sufficient driver. Furthermore, the data shows that NANOG expression in the ICM does not require FGF, WNT or NODAL signals. In particular, we noted an increase in NANOG positive cells when ERK activation is inhibited by PD03. Robust expression of Nanog in the absence of FGF/ERK signalling is reported in a variety of species, including mouse, rat, bovine10 and human blastocysts11 and may present a general feature of naïve pluripotency in mammals.

 

Finally, we would like to emphasise that all lineage-specific RNA-seq data is available as formatted tables in the supplementary to make the data readily accessible for biologists without bioinformatical support.

 

 

Literature

1              Evans, M. J. & Kaufman, M. H. Establishment in culture of pluripotential cells from mouse embryos. Nature 292, 154-156 (1981).

2              Martin, G. R. Isolation of a pluripotent cell line from early mouse embryos cultured in medium conditioned by teratocarcinoma stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78, 7634-7638 (1981).

3              Ying, Q. L. et al. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 453, 519-523, doi:nature06968 [pii] 10.1038/nature06968 (2008).

4              Boroviak, T., Loos, R., Bertone, P., Smith, A. & Nichols, J. The ability of inner-cell-mass cells to self-renew as embryonic stem cells is acquired following epiblast specification. Nat Cell Biol 16, 516-528, doi:10.1038/ncb2965 (2014).

5              Boroviak, T. et al. Lineage-Specific Profiling Delineates the Emergence and Progression of Naive Pluripotency in Mammalian Embryogenesis. Dev Cell 35, 366-382, doi:10.1016/j.devcel.2015.10.011 (2015).

6              Plusa, B., Piliszek, A., Frankenberg, S., Artus, J. & Hadjantonakis, A. K. Distinct sequential cell behaviours direct primitive endoderm formation in the mouse blastocyst. Development 135, 3081-3091, doi:135/18/3081 [pii]

10.1242/dev.021519 (2008).

7              Sasaki, E. et al. Generation of transgenic non-human primates with germline transmission. Nature 459, 523-527, doi:nature08090 [pii]

10.1038/nature08090 (2009).

8              Hanazawa, K. et al. Minimally invasive transabdominal collection of preimplantation embryos from the common marmoset monkey (Callithrix jacchus). Theriogenology 78, 811-816, doi:10.1016/j.theriogenology.2012.03.029 (2012).

9              Mansfield, K. Marmoset models commonly used in biomedical research. Comp Med 53, 383-392 (2003).

10           Kuijk, E. W. et al. The roles of FGF and MAP kinase signaling in the segregation of the epiblast and hypoblast cell lineages in bovine and human embryos. Development 139, 871-882, doi:10.1242/dev.071688 (2012).

11           Roode, M. et al. Human hypoblast formation is not dependent on FGF signalling. Dev Biol 361, 358-363, doi:10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.10.030 (2012).

 

 

 

 

 

Thumbs up (2 votes)
Loading...

Tags: , , ,
Categories: Research

Woods Hole images 2014 round 1- the winner

Posted by , on 4 February 2016

And the winner of the latest round of images from the Woods Hole embryology course is… the short-tailed fruit bat embryo!

 

Here are the full results:

– Pig embryo: 102 votes

– Longfish inshore squid embryo: 67 votes

– Short-tailed  fruit bat embryo: 296 votes

– Mouse embryo: 129 votes

 

2014Round1_C_big

 

 

Many congratulations to Idoia Quintana-Urzainqui (University of Santiago de Compostela, Chile), Paola Bertucci (EMBL, Heidelberg, Germany), Peter Warth (Universität Jena, Germany) and Chi-Kuo Hu (Stanford University, USA) who took this image at the 2014 course. It shows a stage 19 short-tailed fruit bat (Carollia perspicillata).  The  left side of the image shows the fixed embryo before staining, imaged using a Zeiss AxioZoom with ApoTome.   The right side of the image shows the embryo after staining for cartilage (Alcian Blue), imaged using a Leica M80 Stereomicroscope. This image will feature in the cover of a coming issue of Development.

 

The other great images in this round were taken by Agne Kozlovskaja-Gumbriene and Anne-Marie Ladouceur (pig embryo), Michael Piacentino (longfish inshore squid embryo) and Raymond Yip (mouse embryo).

Thumbs up (6 votes)
Loading...

Tags: , ,
Categories: News

another attempt to widen access

Posted by , on 3 February 2016

Sorry for all the messing about, but there are now a number of ways of accessing  my latest polemic which is called The last 50 years: mismeasurement and mismanagement are impeding scientific research.

Here is one

http://making-of-a-fly.me/files/pdf/Lawrence-2016.pdf

 

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Discussion

Interdisciplinary PhD Program on Quantitative Biology, Marseille France

Posted by , on 3 February 2016

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

PhD Program on Quantitative Biology – Open call:

LabEx inform is a interdisciplinary and international research consortium on Quantitative Biology of Signaling, in Marseille, France (http://labex-inform.com/).

LabEx INFORM has its own PhD program, providing interdisciplinary training and excellent education in renowned local institutions with competitive stipend.

We encourage the application of graduate students (master degree or equivalent) with backgrounds in biology but also engineering, physics and mathematics.

This PhD program is integrated in the international training program called BIOTRAIL, providing excellent support to welcome and train international students.

The LabEx INFORM (interdisciplinary program) opens up to 5 positions this year. Recruitment campaign is now open until March 20th 2016!

Information and application procedures : http://sciences.univ-amu.fr/biotrail/apply

PhD program logo sml

Flyer_BioTrail_LabexInform

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

Using the mouse to model human disease: increasing validity and reproducibility

Posted by , on 3 February 2016

This editorial by Monica J. Justice and Paraminder Dhillon was first published in Disease Models & Mechanisms.

 

ABSTRACT

Experiments that use the mouse as a model for disease have recently come under scrutiny because of the repeated failure of data, particularly derived from preclinical studies, to be replicated or translated to humans. The usefulness of mouse models has been questioned because of irreproducibility and poor recapitulation of human conditions. Newer studies, however, point to bias in reporting results and improper data analysis as key factors that limit reproducibility and validity of preclinical mouse research. Inaccurate and incomplete descriptions of experimental conditions also contribute. Here, we provide guidance on best practice in mouse experimentation, focusing on appropriate selection and validation of the model, sources of variation and their influence on phenotypic outcomes, minimum requirements for control sets, and the importance of rigorous statistics. Our goal is to raise the standards in mouse disease modeling to enhance reproducibility, reliability and clinical translation of findings.

 

Introduction
The mouse is the most commonly used model organism in human disease research (Rosenthal and Brown, 2007). Mouse models have been used extensively to provide insight into the mechanisms underlying many diseases, to explore the efficacy of candidate drugs and to predict patient responses. Despite being such a well-established model, the suitability of the mouse to recapitulate human conditions was called into question by a recent study that compared human and mouse immune responses and reported poor correlation between the two organisms (Seok et al., 2013). The article attracted wide media attention and inspired a flurry of commentaries that debated the validity of the mouse as a disease model. Strikingly, a subsequent paper analyzed the same data, using an arguably more rigorous and less biased methodology, and reported the exact opposite findings, largely restoring faith in the mouse as a model for human conditions (Takao and Miyakawa, 2015).This high-profile example highlights an issue that has been at the forefront of researchers’, publishers’ and funding bodies’ minds in recent years: the problem of lack of reproducibility in biomedical science. Poor experimental design combined with a lack of rigor in reporting and reviewing has contributed to irreproducibility of findings, which is particularly rife in work that uses preclinical models. In response, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has called for action to raise standards for carrying out and reporting experiments (Collins and Tabak, 2014). This initiative encourages the scientific community, including funding bodies, academic centers and publishers, to take measures to help enhance reproducibility in science (Kilkenny et al., 2010). As a result, journals including Disease Models & Mechanisms (DMM) recently introduced a compulsory submission checklist that asks authors to verify that they have followed best practice guidelines regarding experimental subjects, data reporting and statistics (http://dmm.biologists.org/sites/default/files/Checklist.pdf).Below, we discuss some of the common problems that we encounter in manuscripts using mouse models, and provide guidance on avoiding these pitfalls and strengthening papers. By raising awareness and working with authors, we hope to raise the standard of reporting and together combat the issue of irreproducibility.

 

Model validity: making sure the mouse is right

It seems an obvious point, but the model used should be appropriate for the question being addressed. An ideal disease model accurately mimics the human condition, genetically, experimentally and/or physiologically. At DMM, we require that the similarities to human disease be rigorously validated, preferably by proof-of-principle experiments demonstrating response to treatment. The controversial study described above compared microarray gene expression data from humans and mice. In one example, data from human blunt-trauma patients were analyzed together with data from a mouse inbred strain that had been exsanguinated. Losing a large amount of blood does not equate to blunt trauma, and so this could be perceived as comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, inbred mouse strains represent limited genetic diversity and might not reflect the responses generated in a genetically polymorphic human population. The conclusions drawn in this manuscript did not take into account these potential sources of experimental differences between the mouse and human, and raise the possibility of bias in data analysis.

Figure1

In a different study, a mouse model was reported to display the key motor symptoms seen in humans with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (Wegorzewska et al., 2009). On the basis of this, the model was used in preclinical studies and promising drug candidates were tested in clinical trials; however, these drugs ultimately failed in humans (Perrin, 2014). It was then shown that this mouse is a poor genetic and phenotypic model of the human condition (Hatzipetros et al., 2014). This example illustrates how relevance to the human disease being studied, supported by strong data to validate the use of the model, is crucial for clinical translation. Humanized models – mice expressing human transgenes or engrafted with functional human cells or tissues – can provide important tools to bridge the gap between animals and humans in preclinical research.

Common sources of variation and how to control for them
As touched upon above, sources of variation that can lead to irreproducible data can be overlooked in mouse papers. The allele and strain in which the target mutation is maintained can make a big difference to the phenotype, so this should be considered during data analysis and a full description of the genetic background should always be included in the Methods section of submitted manuscripts. It should be noted that strains undergo genetic drift when maintained over long periods of time. A key paper reported large molecular differences in 129 substrains maintained in different locations, some of which was due to genetic contamination (Simpson et al., 1997). Similarly, all C57BL/6 strains – commonly used in the laboratory – are not genetically equivalent. The International Mouse Phenotyping Consortium (IMPC) showed that common B6 substrains (C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N) have phenotypic differences (Simon et al., 2013). Therefore, using a homozygous mutant strain that could have been backcrossed to an unknown B6 substrain years ago together with a B6 substrain obtained from a commercial supplier as a control provides a pertinent example of inappropriate use of strains.The habitat of an animal – determined by the experimental conditions in a laboratory – has a huge impact on experimental results. Husbandry conditions can vary widely, and specific pathogen status, bedding, water, light/dark cycles and group or single housing are just some of the factors that can influence phenotypes. There is mounting evidence to suggest that the bacterial community maintained by an organism, known as the microbiome, can have a strong effect on many aspects of host physiology – from immune responses to neural function (reviewed in Nguyen et al., 2015). Similar to the previous point, mice from the same strain housed in two different locations can have vastly different microbiomes, which could compromise experimental findings. Again, utilizing a control strain from an external supplier, where the experimental conditions could be vastly different, is inappropriate.Appropriate controls can alleviate misinterpretation of data from such experiments. Littermate controls are ideal for most mouse experiments, and in many experiments can be generated during breeding. However, many strains are maintained as homozygotes over long periods of time, making the use of littermates possible only if the strain is crossed to a relevant B6 substrain, then intercrossed to re-derive the homozygotes. When using mice to test therapeutics, it is also important to randomize the animals to treatment and control groups. Therefore, multiple litters should be used, and littermates should be assigned to each group. Crucially, the experimenter should be blinded to the experimental condition and genotype of the mice, removing any user bias.
The caveats of conditional mutagenesis
The use of Cre technology together with conditional-ready knockout alleles to eliminate a gene in a specific tissue or at a certain time is a widely used approach. Cre, however, is a recombinase whose expression can have widespread effects on the genome. In 2013, DMM published a paper reporting off-target toxic effects of Cre recombinase in mouse cardiac tissue (Lexow et al., 2013), which called into question the findings from earlier studies that concluded that the phenotypes observed were a consequence of the mutated allele. We thus recommend that, in studies using Cre-based conditional alleles, the effects of Cre activity alone must be included as a control. A companion paper provided evidence that tamoxifen itself can also have harmful effects on the organism (Bersell et al., 2013), which should also be considered when using a tamoxifen-inducible Cre driver. This problem does not stop with Cre. The presence of the tetracycline transactivator (TTA), used to conditionally induce gene expression, can have tissue- and strain-specific effects. For example, its use was reported to cause transgene-specific brain structural anomalies in certain inbred strains of mice (Han et al., 2012). Again, the transgene alone, treated with the inducing agent, is an essential control.
Statistics and the 3Rs
As in other research areas, rigorous statistics are of critical importance when using mouse models. Mouse studies are regulated by international governing bodies and monitored by institute-specific animal protocol approval committees. The goal in animal studies follows a principle called the ‘3Rs’ – replace, reduce and refine – a policy that provides a framework for humane research (Fenwick et al., 2009). Replacement allows for an alternative to animal research. In the context of DMM, such experiments might provide additional evidence that the animal studies are valid. Refinement should minimize the suffering to the animal and improve animal welfare, a requirement provided by institutional committees prior to experimentation. Reduction minimizes the number of animals used per experiment, which generates a need for careful consideration of statistical methods during experimental design. Because of low numbers, mouse studies use a standard error versus standard deviation as a statistical measure, and such statistics have lower power. To be sure the experiment is valid, studies should use cohort sizes that will provide sufficient statistical power whilst adhering to the 3Rs – studying three or four animals is usually not enough. It is a good idea to consult a statistician in your institute prior to carrying out your experiment, and again when you analyze and report the data.
From mouse to humans: a community effort
In summary, setting rigorous standards for carrying out and reporting mouse work will help to improve the likelihood of reproducibility. Validation of the model, proper use of controls and attention to rigorous experimentation and statistics are fundamental to increase the translational impact of animal experiments. It is the responsibility of the authors, editors and reviewers to ensure that the common pitfalls described above are avoided and experiments are performed to the highest standard possible within the necessary ethical and regulatory framework.The debate about the utility of model organisms will never end, and a model is simply that: it is not the human. But there is no denying that the information produced from model organism studies has had a profound and lasting impact on human health, and will continue to do so. An ongoing community effort is needed to promote reproducibility and proper reporting to ensure that the use of preclinical model organisms advances translational research in the most efficient and effective way.

 

 

References

  1. Bersell, K., Choudhury, S., Mollova, M., Polizzotti, B. D., Ganapathy, B., Walsh, S., Wadugu, B., Arab, S. and Kuhn, B. (2013). Moderate and high amounts of tamoxifen in alphaMHC-MerCreMer mice induce a DNA damage response, leading to heart failure and death. Dis. Model. Mech. 6, 1459-1469. doi:10.1242/dmm.010447
  2. Collins, F. S. and Tabak, L. A. (2014). Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505, 612-613. doi:10.1038/505612a
  3. Fenwick, N., Griffin, G. and Gauthier, C. (2009). The welfare of animals used in science: how the “Three Rs” ethic guides improvements. Can. Vet. J. 50, 523-530.
  4. Han, H. J., Allen, C. C., Buchovecky, C. M., Yetman, M. J., Born, H. A., Marin, M. A., Rodgers, S. P., Song, B. J., Lu, H.-C., Justice, M. J. et al. (2012). Strain background influences neurotoxicity and behavioral abnormalities in mice expressing the tetracycline transactivator. J. Neurosci. 32, 10574-10586. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0893-12.2012
  5. Hatzipetros, T., Bogdanik, L. P., Tassinari, V. R., Kidd, J. D., Moreno, A. J., Davis, C., Osborne, M., Austin, A., Vieira, F. G., Lutz, C. et al. (2014). C57BL/6J congenic Prp-TDP43A315T mice develop progressive neurodegeneration in the myenteric plexus of the colon without exhibiting key features of ALS. Brain Res. 1584, 59-72. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2013.10.013
  6. Kilkenny, C., Browne, W. J., Cuthill, I. C., Emerson, M. and Altman, D. G. (2010). Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 8, e1000412. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412
  7. Lexow, J., Poggioli, T., Sarathchandra, P., Santini, M. P. and Rosenthal, N. (2013). Cardiac fibrosis in mice expressing an inducible myocardial-specific Cre driver. Dis. Model. Mech. 6, 1470-1476. doi:10.1242/dmm.010470
  8. Nguyen, T. L. A., Vieira-Silva, S., Liston, A. and Raes, J. (2015). How informative is the mouse for human gut microbiota research? Dis. Model. Mech. 8, 1-16. doi:10.1242/dmm.017400
  9. Perrin, S. (2014). Preclinical research: make mouse studies work. Nature 507, 423-425. doi:10.1038/507423a
  10. Rosenthal, N. and Brown, S. (2007). The mouse ascending: perspectives for human-disease models. Nat. Cell Biol. 9, 993-999. doi:10.1038/ncb437
  11. Seok, J., Warren, H. S., Cuenca, A. G., Mindrinos, M. N., Baker, H. V., Xu, W., Richards, D. R., McDonald-Smith, G. P., Gao, H., Hennessy, L. et al. (2013). Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3507-3512. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222878110
  12. Simon, M. M., Greenaway, S., White, J. K., Fuchs, H., Gailus-Durner, V., Wells, S., Sorg, T., Wong, K., Bedu, E., Cartwright, E. J. et al. (2013). A comparative phenotypic and genomic analysis of C57BL/6J and C57BL/6N mouse strains. Genome Biol. 14, R82. doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-7-r82
  13. Simpson, E. M., Linder, C. C., Sargent, E. E., Davisson, M. T., Mobraaten, L. E. and Sharp, J. J. (1997). Genetic variation among 129 substrains and its importance for targeted mutagenesis in mice. Nat. Genet. 16, 19-27. doi:10.1038/ng0597-19
  14. Takao, K. and Miyakawa, T. (2015). Genomic responses in mouse models greatly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 1167-1172. doi:10.1073/pnas.1401965111
  15. Wegorzewska, I., Bell, S., Cairns, N. J., Miller, T. M. and Baloh, R. H. (2009). TDP-43 mutant transgenic mice develop features of ALS and frontotemporal lobar degeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18809-18814. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908767106
Thumbs up (2 votes)
Loading...

Tags: ,
Categories: Discussion, Research

Postdoctoral position, Cutaneous Biology Research Center, Harvard Medical School.

Posted by , on 3 February 2016

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

Postdoctoral position to study organogenesis and regeneration using the mouse hair follicle as a model system. The Morgan lab exploits genetically engineered mice to study the role of the mesenchyme in the development and regeneration of the hair follicle with a focus on how feedback between the epithelial and mesenchymal compartments is modified to regulate regeneration and to achieve distinct morphogenetic outcomes. Preference will be given to recent Ph.D. graduates with a strong background in developmental or stem cell biology and molecular biology skills. To apply, send a c.v. and statement of research interest to Bruce Morgan <bmorgan@mgh.harvard.edu>.

Thumbs up (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Tags: ,
Categories: Jobs

Postdoctoral Research Associate position in Cell Biology of Neuronal Differentiation – University of Manchester

Posted by , on 3 February 2016

Closing Date: 15 March 2021

Applications are invited for a highly motivated post-doctoral research associate to join the laboratory of Dr Raman Das in the Faculty of Life Sciences at the University of Manchester, UK. The successful candidate will exploit cutting-edge live tissue imaging techniques to dissect the cell biological mechanisms regulating establishment of neuron polarity and axon extension during vertebrate neurogenesis.

This project builds on our recent discovery of a new form of cell sub-division, apical abscission, which regulates detachment of new-born neurons from the ventricle of the neural tube and facilitates progression of neuronal differentiation. (Das, R.M. & Storey, K.G. (2014) Apical Abscission Alters Cell Polarity and Dismantles the Primary Cilium During Neurogenesis. Science 343, 200-204.).

This MRC funded position is available for 3 years (in the first instance). Applicants should have recently obtained (or shortly expect to gain) a PhD in cell and developmental biology or a related field. Experience with vertebrate embryos and live imaging techniques would be an advantage, as would an interest in the cellular mechanisms directing neuronal differentiation. The successful candidate will benefit from hands-on training and close interaction with the principal investigator and will benefit from the world-class facilities available in the lab and at the University of Manchester.

Informal enquiries are encouraged and should be directed to Dr Raman Das at raman.das@manchester.ac.uk.

For more details please visit: https://www.jobs.manchester.ac.uk/displayjob.aspx?jobid=10997

Thumbs up (1 votes)
Loading...

Categories: Jobs

Green Glow the Salamanders

Posted by , on 3 February 2016

This is an terrific Shelf Life video made by Erin Chapman at the American Museum of Natural History. It features our work on a symbiosis between the classic model salamander Ambystoma maculatum and its algal symbiont, Oophila amblystomatis.

 

Thumbs up (2 votes)
Loading...

Tags: ,
Categories: Video