Ming F Lui Dvm, Melissa Osborne Ms, Todd Dehm Ma, Min Lee Ba, Julian A Castaneda Dvm PhD Daclam
{"title":"通过 PCR 比较 B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle 和 B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle Sncatm1Mjff 小鼠口腔拭子与尾部活检的基因分型准确性。","authors":"Ming F Lui Dvm, Melissa Osborne Ms, Todd Dehm Ma, Min Lee Ba, Julian A Castaneda Dvm PhD Daclam","doi":"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-23-000045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Genotyping is a common and necessary procedure performed on genetically modified animals to distinguish carriers from noncarriers of the variants of interest. Established methods involve collection of tissues such as tips of tails or notches of ears. Noninvasive methods have been described but not widely adopted for reasons including inertia to change, needs to adjust PCR protocols, and the lack of validation; noninvasive genotyping methods are a refinement on animal welfare, but questions remain regarding how they compare with invasive methods in terms of genotyping accuracy rate and reproducibility. To gain answers to these questions, we compared the detection accuracy of the transgene and determination of zygosity in B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle and B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle Sncatm1Mjff neonatal mice between tail biopsies and buccal swabs. Moreover, we weighed and observed mice following genotyping to see if any clinical differences can be discerned. Weight data did not support statistically significant differences in mice undergoing different genotyping procedures and control. No statistically significant difference was found between using buccal swabs or tail biopsies for genotyping with PCR or quantitative PCR. None of the pups swabbed was rejected by the dam. Our findings indicate that buccal swabbing is a more humane and feasible alternative to tail biopsies for high-throughput genotyping.","PeriodicalId":94111,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","volume":"22 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Genotyping Accuracy Using Buccal Swabs versus Tail Biopsies by PCR in B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle and B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle Sncatm1Mjff Mice.\",\"authors\":\"Ming F Lui Dvm, Melissa Osborne Ms, Todd Dehm Ma, Min Lee Ba, Julian A Castaneda Dvm PhD Daclam\",\"doi\":\"10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-23-000045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Genotyping is a common and necessary procedure performed on genetically modified animals to distinguish carriers from noncarriers of the variants of interest. Established methods involve collection of tissues such as tips of tails or notches of ears. Noninvasive methods have been described but not widely adopted for reasons including inertia to change, needs to adjust PCR protocols, and the lack of validation; noninvasive genotyping methods are a refinement on animal welfare, but questions remain regarding how they compare with invasive methods in terms of genotyping accuracy rate and reproducibility. To gain answers to these questions, we compared the detection accuracy of the transgene and determination of zygosity in B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle and B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle Sncatm1Mjff neonatal mice between tail biopsies and buccal swabs. Moreover, we weighed and observed mice following genotyping to see if any clinical differences can be discerned. Weight data did not support statistically significant differences in mice undergoing different genotyping procedures and control. No statistically significant difference was found between using buccal swabs or tail biopsies for genotyping with PCR or quantitative PCR. None of the pups swabbed was rejected by the dam. Our findings indicate that buccal swabbing is a more humane and feasible alternative to tail biopsies for high-throughput genotyping.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS\",\"volume\":\"22 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-23-000045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30802/AALAS-JAALAS-23-000045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing Genotyping Accuracy Using Buccal Swabs versus Tail Biopsies by PCR in B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle and B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle Sncatm1Mjff Mice.
Genotyping is a common and necessary procedure performed on genetically modified animals to distinguish carriers from noncarriers of the variants of interest. Established methods involve collection of tissues such as tips of tails or notches of ears. Noninvasive methods have been described but not widely adopted for reasons including inertia to change, needs to adjust PCR protocols, and the lack of validation; noninvasive genotyping methods are a refinement on animal welfare, but questions remain regarding how they compare with invasive methods in terms of genotyping accuracy rate and reproducibility. To gain answers to these questions, we compared the detection accuracy of the transgene and determination of zygosity in B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle and B6;C3-Tg(Prnp-SNCA*A53T)83Vle Sncatm1Mjff neonatal mice between tail biopsies and buccal swabs. Moreover, we weighed and observed mice following genotyping to see if any clinical differences can be discerned. Weight data did not support statistically significant differences in mice undergoing different genotyping procedures and control. No statistically significant difference was found between using buccal swabs or tail biopsies for genotyping with PCR or quantitative PCR. None of the pups swabbed was rejected by the dam. Our findings indicate that buccal swabbing is a more humane and feasible alternative to tail biopsies for high-throughput genotyping.