Power matters in closing the phenotyping gap

Much of our understanding of physiology and metabolism is derived from investigating mouse mutants and transgenic mice, and open-access platforms for standardized mouse phenotyping such as the German Mouse Clinic (GMC) are currently viewed as one powerful tool for identifying novel gene-function relationships. Phenotyping or phenotypic screening involves the comparison of wild-type control mice with their mutant or transgenic littermates. In our study, we explored the extent to which standardized phenotyping will succeed in detecting biologically relevant phenotypic differences in mice generated and provided by different collaborators. We analyzed quantitative metabolic data (body mass, energy intake, and energy metabolized) collected at the GMC under the current workflow, and used them for statistical power considerations. Our results demonstrate that there is substantial variability in these parameters among lines of wild-type C57BL/6 (B6) mice from different sources. Given this variable background noise in mice that serve as controls, subtle phenotypes in mutant or transgenic littermates may be overlooked. Furthermore, a phenotype observed in one cohort of a mutant line may not be reproducible (to the same extent) in mice coming from a different environment or supplier. In the light of these constraints, we encourage researchers to incorporate information on intrastrain variability into future study planning, or to perform advanced hierarchical analyses. Both will ultimately improve the detectability of novel phenotypes by phenotypic screening. Carola W. Meyer and Ralf Elvert contributed equally to this work.     

The evolutionary position of turtles revised

Consensus on the evolutionary position of turtles within the amniote phylogeny has eluded evolutionary biologists for more than a century. This phylogenetic problem has remained unsolved partly because turtles have such a unique morphology that only few characters can be used to link them with any other group of amniotes. Among the many alternative hypotheses that have been postulated to explain the origin and phylogenetic relationships of turtles, a general agreement among paleontologists emerged in favoring the placement of turtles as the only living survivors of the anapsid reptiles (those that lack temporal fenestrae in the skull). However, recent morphological and molecular studies have radically changed our view of amniote phylogenetic relationships, and evidence is accumulating that supports the diapsid affinities of turtles. Molecular studies favor archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) as the living sister group of turtles, whereas morphological studies support lepidosaurs (tuatara, lizards, and snakes) as the closest living relatives of turtles. Accepting these hypotheses implies that turtles cannot be viewed any longer as primitive reptiles, and that they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them.