eNews April 02, 2015

How substrains arise

Substrains may arise for any of the following reasons:

  • Residual heterozygosity or incomplete inbreeding at the time of separation from progenitors (Bailey 1977; Bailey DW. 1982. Immunology Today 3:210-14)
  • Undetected spontaneous mutations that become fixed in a colony (genetic drift) (Radulovic et al. 1998; Sluyter et al. 1999; Stiedl et al. 1999; Specht et al. 2001; Roth et al. 2002; Wotjak 2003)
  • Undetected (accidental) genetic contamination (Naggert et al. 1995)
  • Deliberate (and either unrecorded or forgotten) outcrossing of strains for specific experimental purposes (Bailey 1977; Bailey DW. Immunology Today 1982; 3:210-14; Simpson et al. 1997; Threadgill et al. 1997; Wotjak 2003)
  • Separation of a subcolony from its parent colony for a combined total of 20 or more generations 
    • For example, if the parent and subcolony were separated, and they have each been bred for 10 generations, the subcolony and the parent colony are in fact 20 generations apart.
  • A new health status assignment to a subcolony (for example a pathogen free status)

Phenotypes among substrains can vary

Numerous studies report physiological and behavioral differences among substrains. As examples:

Once a subcolony is determined to be a substrain, it should be given a laboratory code that consists of one to five letters identifying the institute, laboratory or investigator that produced and/or maintains a particular animal strain. Laboratory codes are assigned by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR).

Immunologists uncover most substrain differences

Substrain differences may be particularly important to immunologists, whose studies depend on well-defined, homogenous backgrounds. In fact, immunologists seem to uncover more genotypic variations in inbred strains than do other scientists, perhaps because the molecular traits they often investigate are more sensitive than are other traits to subtle changes (Bailey DW. 1982. Immunology Today 3:210-14).

Differences among 129 substrains confound research results

Reports of actual confounding scientific results due to 129 substrain differences have served as a wake-up call to the research community. The 129 strain originated in 1928 and has since differentiated into numerous substrains. Because embryonic stem (ES) cells derived from 129 mice colonize germlines so efficiently, the 129 strain is one of the most widely used strains in genetic studies. However, for decades ES cell lines from numerous 129 substrains were used with little attention to their differences, in spite of the following problems:

1) The origin and the reported physiological differences between 129 substrains used to be unknown (Hogan B. Beddington R, Costantini F, Lacy E. 1994. Manipulating the mouse embryo: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor (NY)).

2) Many loci in the R1 ES cell line appeared to be heterozygous.

3) Efficient gene targeting depended on isogenic DNA (te Riele et al. 1992; van Deursen and Wieringa 1992).

In 1997, Threadgill and his colleagues decided to conduct a thorough molecular analysis of the relatedness of various 129 substrains. They found that strain 129/SvJ is significantly different from other 129 substrains and should be more accurately classified as a recombinant congenic strain (129X/Sv) derived from 129/Sv and an unknown strain "X."

Genetic differences between 129 substrains* explained why:

  • 129X1/SvJ is a high ovulator in response to exogenous gonadotropins, whereas 129P3/J and 129P1/ReJ are low ovulators (Hogan B. Beddington R, Costantini F, Lacy E. 1994. Manipulating the mouse embryo: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed. Cold Spring Harbor (NY))
  • Previous experimental results involving targeted Egfr allele were confusing.
  • Efficient homologous recombination in ES cells, which depends on isogenic DNA, are either suboptimal or impossible, when using constructs derived from one of the 129X1/SvJ-derived libraries in a 129S1/Sv-+Tyr+Oca2 -derived ES cell line.

* Petkov and his colleagues (Petkov et al. 2004), using a panel of SNPs, determined that 129X1/SvJ has genetic contributions from C57BL/6J on Chromosomes 5, 7, 14, 18, and 19, and from BALB/cJ on Chromosomes 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, and X, suggesting that the "X" in 129X1/SvJ is an F1 hybrid between C57BL/6J and BALB/cJ.


Bailey DW. 1977. Genetic drift: the problem and its possible solution by frozen-embryo storage. Ciba Found Symp 291-303.

Bailey DW. 1982. How pure are inbred strains of mice? Immunology Today 3:210-214.

Crawley JN, Belknap JK, Collins A, Crabbe JC, Frankel W, Henderson N, Hitzemann RJ, Maxson SC, Miner LL, Silva AJ, Wehner JM, Wynshaw-Boris A, Paylor R. 1997. Behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains: implications and recommendations for molecular studies. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 132:107-124.

Gerlai R. 2001. Gene targeting: technical confounds and potential solutions in behavioral brain research. Behav Brain Res 125:13-21.

Glant TT, Bardos T, Vermes C, Chandrasekaran R, Valdez JC, Otto JM, Gerard D, Velins S, Lovasz G, Zhang J, Mikecz K, Finnegan A. 2001. Variations in susceptibility to proteoglycan-induced arthritis and spondylitis among C3H substrains of mice: evidence of genetically acquired resistance to autoimmune disease. Arthritis Rheum 44:682-692.

Hogan B, Beddington R, Constantini F, Lacy E. 1994. Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: a Laboratory Manual. 2nd edition Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory Press, NY.

JAX NOTES. 2003. Chromosomal inversion discovered in C3H/HeJ mice. 491:15.

Linder CC. 2001. The influence of genetic background on spontaneous and genetically engineered mouse models of complex diseases. Lab Anim (NY) 30:34-39.

Naggert JK, Mu JL, Frankel W, Bailey DW, Paigen B. 1995. Genomic analysis of the C57BL/Ks mouse strain. Mamm Genome 6:131-133.

Petkov PM, Cassell MA, Sargent EE, Donnelly CJ, Robinson P, Crew V, Asquith S, Harr RV, Wiles MV. 2004. Development of a SNP genotyping panel for genetic monitoring of the laboratory mouse. Genomics 83:902-11.

Petkov PM, Ding Y, Cassell MA, Zhang W, Wagner G, Sargent EE, Asquith S, Crew V, Johnson KA, Robinson P, Scott VE, Wiles MV. 2004. An Efficient SNP System for Mouse Genome Scanning and Elucidating Strain Relationships. Genome Res 14:1806-1811.

Radulovic J, Kammermeier J, Spiess J. 1998. Generalization of fear responses in C57BL/6N mice subjected to one-trial foreground contextual fear conditioning. Behav Brain Res 95:179-89.

Roth DM, Swaney JS, Dalton ND, Gilpin EA, Ross J. 2002. Impact of anesthesia on cardiac function during echocardiography in mice, Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 282: H2134-H2140.

Silva AJ, Simpson EM, Takahashi JS, Lipp H, Nakanishi S, Wehner JM, Giese KP, Tully T, Abel T, Chapman PF, Fox K, Grant S, Itohara S, Lathe R, Mayford M, McNamara JO, Morris RJ, Picciotto M, Roder M, Shin H, Slesinger PA, Storm DR, Stryker MP, Tonegawa S, Wang Y, Wolfer DP. 1997. Mutant mice and neuroscience: recommendations concerning genetic background. Neuron 19:755-59.

Simpson EM, Linder CC, Sargent EE, Davisson MT, Mobraaten LE, Sharp JJ. 1997. Genetic variation among 129 substrains and its importance for targeted mutagenesis in mice. Nat Genet 16:19-27.

Silver L. 1995. Mouse Genetics, Oxford. p 394.

Sluyter F, Marican CC, Crusio WE. 1999. Further phenotypical characterisation of two substrains of C57BL/6J inbred mice differing by a spontaneous single-gene mutation. Behav Brain Res 98:39-43.

Specht CG, Schoepfer R. 2001. Deletion of the alpha-synuclein locus in a subpopulation of C57BL/6J inbred mice. BMC Neurosci 2:11.

Stiedl O, Radulovic J, Lohmann R, Birkenfeld K, PalveM, Kammermeier J, Sananbenesi F, Spiess J. 1999. Strain and substrain differences in context- and tone-dependent fear contioning of inbred mice. Behav Brain Res 104:1-12.

Taft RA, Davisson M, Wiles MV. 2006. Know thy mouse. Trends Genet 22, 649-653.

te Riele H, Maandag ER, Berns A. 1992. Highly efficient gene targeting in embryonic stem cells through homologous recombination with isogenic DNA constructs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 89:5128-5132.

Threadgill DW, Yee D, Matin A, Nadeau J, Magnuson T. 1997. Genealogy of the 129 inbred strains: 129SvJ is a contaminated inbred strain. Mamm Genome 8:390-393.

Van Deursen J, Wieringa B. 1992. Targeting of the creatine dinase M gene in embryonic stem cells using isogenic and nonisogenic vectors. Nucleic Acids Res 20:3815-3820

Vance RE, Jamieson AM, Cado D, Raulet DH. 2002. Implications of CD94 deficiency and monoalleic NKG2A expression for natural killer cell development and repertoire formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:868-73.

Whittingham DG, Leibo SP, Mazur P. 1972. Survival of mouse embryos frozen to -196 degrees and -269 degrees C. Science 178:411-414.

Whittingham DG. 1974. Embryo banks in the future of developmental genetics. Genetics 78:395-402.

Wilhelm BT, Landry JR, Takei F, Mager DL. 2003. Transcriptional control of murine CD94 gene: differential usage of dual promoters by lymphoid cell types. J Immunol 171:4219-26.

Wolfer, DP, Crusio WE, Lipp HP. 2002. Knockout mice: simple solutions to the problems of genetic background and flanking genes. Trends Neurosci 25: 336-340.

Wotjak CT. 2003. C57BLack/BOX? The importance of exact mouse strain nomenclature. Trends Genet 19:183-184.

Yang Y, Beyer BJ, Otto JF, O'Brien TP, Letts VA, White HS, Frankel WN. 2003. Spontaneous deletion of epilepsy gene orthologs in a mutant mouse with a low electroconvulsive threshold. Hum Mol Genet 12:975-984.