Hubbry Logo
Inbred strainInbred strainMain
Open search
Inbred strain
Community hub
Inbred strain
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Inbred strain
Inbred strain
Inbred strain
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Inbred strains (also called inbred lines, or rarely for animals linear animals) are individuals of a particular species which are nearly identical to each other in genotype due to long inbreeding. A strain is generally defined to be inbred once it has undergone at least 20 generations of brother x sister or offspring x parent mating,[1] at which point at least 98.6% of the loci in an individual of the strain will be homozygous.

Experiments in mice have shown some heterozygosity can still be measured until the 40th generation.[1] Some inbred strains have been bred for over 150 generations, leaving individuals in the population to be isogenic in nature.[2]

Inbred strains of animals are frequently used in laboratories for experiments where for the reproducibility of conclusions all the test animals should be as similar as possible. However, for some experiments, genetic diversity in the test population may be desired. Thus, outbred strains of most laboratory animals are also available, where an outbred strain is a strain of an organism that is effectively wildtype in nature, where there is as little inbreeding as possible.[3]

Certain plants including the genetic model organism Arabidopsis thaliana naturally self-pollinate, which makes it quite easy to create inbred strains in the laboratory (other plants, including important genetic models such as maize require transfer of pollen from one flower to another).[4][5]

In the lab

[edit]

Inbred strains have been extensively used in research. Several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work that probably could not have been done without inbred strains. This work includes Medawar's research on immune tolerance, Kohler and Milstein's development of monoclonal antibodies, and Doherty and Zinkernagel's studies of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC).[2]

Isogenic organisms have identical, or near identical genotypes.[6] which is true of inbred strains, since they normally have at least 98.6% similarity by generation 20.[2] This exceedingly high uniformity means that fewer individuals are required to produce results with the same level of statistical significance when an inbred line is used in comparison to an outbred line in the same experiment.[7]

Breeding of inbred strains is often towards specific phenotypes of interest such as behavioural traits like alcohol preference or physical traits like aging, or they can be selected for traits that make them easier to use in experiments like being easy to use in transgenic experiments.[2] One of the key strengths of using inbred strains as a model is that strains are readily available for whatever study one is performing and that there are resources such as the Jackson Laboratory, and FlyBase, where one can look up strains with specific phenotypes or genotypes from among inbred lines, recombinant lines, and coisogenic strains. The embryos of lines that are of little interest currently can be frozen and preserved until there is an interest in their unique genotypical or phenotypical traits.[8]

Recombinant inbred lines

[edit]
QTL mapping using inbred strains

For the analysis of the linkage of quantitative traits, recombinant lines are useful because of their isogenic nature, because the genetic similarity of individuals allows for the replication of a quantitative trait locus analysis. The replication increases the precision of the results from the mapping experiment, and is required for traits such as aging where minor changes in the environment can influence the longevity of an organism, leading to variation in results.[9]

Coisogenic strain

[edit]

One type of inbred strain that either has been altered, or naturally mutated so that it is different at a single locus.[10] Such strains are useful in the analysis of variance within an inbred strain or between inbred strains because any differences would be due to the single genetic change, or to a difference in environmental conditions between two individuals of the same strain.[9]

Gal4 lines

[edit]

One of the more specific uses of Drosophila inbred strains is the use of Gal4/UAS lines in research.[11] Gal4/UAS is a driver system, where Gal4 can be expressed in specific tissues under specific conditions based on its location in the Drosophila genome. Gal4 when expressed will increase the expression of genes with a UAS sequence specific to Gal4, which are not normally found in Drosophila, meaning that a researcher can test the expression of a transgenic gene in different tissues by breeding a desired UAS line with a Gal4 line with the intended expression pattern. Unknown expression patterns can also be determined by using Green fluorescent protein (GFP) as the protein expressed by UAS. Drosophila in particular has thousands of Gal4 lines with unique and specific expression patterns, making it possible to test most expression patterns within the organism.[11]

Effects

[edit]

Inbreeding animals will sometimes lead to genetic drift. The continuous overlaying of like genetics exposes recessive gene patterns that often lead to changes in reproduction performance, fitness, and ability to survive. A decrease in these areas is known as inbreeding depression. A hybrid between two inbred strains can be used to cancel out deleterious recessive genes resulting in an increase in the mentioned areas. This is known as heterosis.[12]

Inbred strains, because they are small populations of homozygous individuals, are susceptible to the fixation of new mutations through genetic drift. Jackson Laboratory, in an information session on the genetic drift in mice, calculated a quick estimate of the rate of mutation based on observed traits to be 1 phenotypic mutation every 1.8 generations, though they caution that this is likely an under-representation because the data they used was for visible phenotypic changes and not phenotype changes inside of mice strains. They further add that statistically every 6-9 generations, a mutation in the coding sequence is fixed, leading to the creation of a new substrain. Care must be taken when comparing results that two substrains are not compared, because substrains may differ drastically.[13]

Notable species

[edit]

Rats and mice

[edit]

"The period before World War I led to the initiation of inbreeding in rats by Dr. Helen King in about 1909 and in mice by Dr. C. C. Little in 1909. The latter project led to the development of the DBA strain of mice, now widely distributed as the two major sub-strains DBA/1 and DBA/2, which were separated in 1929-1930. DBA mice were nearly lost in 1918, when the main stocks were wiped out by murine paratyphoid, and only three un-pedigreed mice remained alive. Soon after World War I, inbreeding in mice was started on a much larger scale by Dr L. C. Strong, leading in particular to the development of strains C3H and CBA, and by Dr. C. C. Little, leading to the C57 family of strains (C57BL, C57BR and C57L). Many of the most popular strains of mice were developed during the next decade, and some are closely related. Evidence from the uniformity of mitochondrian DNA suggests that most of the common inbred mouse strains were probably derived from a single breeding female about 150–200 years ago."

"Many of the most widely used inbred strains of rats were also developed during this period, several of them by Curtis and Dunning at the Columbia University Institute for Cancer Research. Strains dating back to this time include F344, M520 and Z61 and later ACI, ACH, A7322 and COP. Tryon's classic work on selection for maze-bright and dull rats led to the development of the TMB and TMD inbred strains, and later to the common use of inbred rats by experimental psychologists."[8]

Rats

[edit]
  • Wistar as a generic name for inbred strains such as Wistar-Kyoto, developed from the Wistar outbred strains.
  • The Rat Genome Database maintains the current list of inbred rat lines and their characteristics.

Mice

[edit]

The numerous inbred strains of mice have been mapped extensively.[2] A genealogical chart building on those relationships is actively maintained by the Jackson Laboratory,[8] and can be found on their website.[14]

Guinea pigs

[edit]

G. M. Rommel first started conducting inbreeding experiments on guinea pigs in 1906. Strain 2 and 13 guinea pigs, were derived from these experiments and are still in use today. Sewall Wright took over the experiment in 1915. He was faced with the task of analyzing all of the accumulated data produced by Rommel. Wright became seriously interested in constructing a general mathematical theory of inbreeding. By 1920, Wright had developed his method of path coefficients, which he then used to develop his mathematical theory of inbreeding. Wright introduced the inbreeding coefficient F as the correlation between uniting gametes in 1922, and most of the subsequent theory of inbreeding has been developed from his work. The definition of the inbreeding coefficient now most widely used is mathematically equivalent to that of Wright.[8]

Medaka

[edit]

The Japanese Medaka fish has a high tolerance for inbreeding, one line having been bred brother-sister for as many as 100 generations without evidence of inbreeding depression, providing a ready tool for laboratory research and genetic manipulations. Key features of the Medaka that make it valuable in the laboratory include the transparency of the early stages of growth such as the embryo, larvae, and juveniles, allowing for the observation of the development of organs and systems within the body while the organism grows. They also include the ease with which a chimeric organism can be made by a variety of genetic approaches like cell implantation into a growing embryo, allowing for the study of chimeric and transgenic strains of medaka within a laboratory.[15]

Zebrafish

[edit]

Though there are many traits about zebrafish that are worthwhile to study including their regeneration, there are relatively few inbred strains of zebrafish possibly because they experience greater effects from inbreeding depression than mice or Medaka fish, but it is unclear if the effects of inbreeding can be overcome so an isogenic strain can be created for laboratory use.[16]

See also

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Inbred strains.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Inbred strain

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
An inbred strain is a genetically homogeneous population of organisms, typically laboratory animals such as mice or rats, developed through at least 20 consecutive generations of controlled (brother-sister) or parent-offspring , resulting in individuals that are nearly identical in and homozygous at virtually all loci except for . These strains are created from diverse outbred populations by systematic to fix specific alleles and eliminate , with traceability back to a single founding pair by the 20th generation or later. Once established, inbred strains are maintained through ongoing brother-sister or equivalent matings to sustain their high degree of homozygosity, though substrains may diverge over time if colonies are separated before the 40th generation or if mutations accumulate. This process achieves over 99% genetic identity within the strain, making them distinct from outbred stocks where persists. Inbred strains play a central role in biomedical and genetic due to their uniformity, which reduces experimental variability and enhances by minimizing the influence of genetic background noise. They are essential for mapping genes underlying , modeling human diseases such as cancer, , and infectious conditions, and evaluating drug responses, as phenotypic differences between strains can be directly linked to genetic factors. Common examples include the strain, widely used for its robust and disease susceptibility profiles, and BALB/c, valued for its Th2-biased immune responses in and studies. Resources like the Mouse Phenome Database further support their application by providing phenotypic data across strains for comparative analyses.

Definition and History

Definition

An inbred strain is defined as a population of animals within a species that are nearly genetically identical, resulting from at least 20 consecutive generations of controlled sibling matings, such as brother-sister or parent-offspring pairings. This systematic process minimizes , producing cohorts where individuals share virtually the same . A key criterion for classifying a strain as inbred is the achievement of near-complete homozygosity, exceeding 98% at all chromosomal loci, which establishes isogenic populations akin to immortal clones. This high level of uniformity ensures that phenotypic differences observed within the strain arise primarily from environmental factors rather than . In contrast to inbred strains, outbred stocks and closed colonies are bred to maintain heterozygosity and , with outbred stocks involving random within a closed to maximize variability, and closed colonies avoiding introductions from external sources while promoting unrelated pairings. Inbred strains are particularly prevalent in laboratory research involving such as mice and rats, where their genetic consistency facilitates reproducible experimental outcomes.

Historical Development

The development of inbred strains originated in the early through systematic experiments in small laboratory animals to explore genetic uniformity and inheritance patterns. In 1906, G. M. Rommel of the initiated an program using guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) to investigate the physiological and reproductive effects of close-kin over multiple generations. This marked one of the earliest documented efforts to create genetically homogeneous populations in vertebrates for scientific study. Three years later, in 1909, Clarence Cook Little, then an undergraduate at , began brother-sister matings in mice to study coat color , establishing the foundational DBA strain; these efforts later extended to , where uniform strains facilitated tumor transplantation experiments and revealed the role of in rejection. The 1920s and 1930s saw rapid expansion and institutionalization of inbred mouse strain development, driven by growing interest in mammalian genetics. Clarence Little founded The Jackson Laboratory in 1929 specifically to breed and distribute inbred mice for cancer and inheritance studies, which accelerated the creation of key strains. The BALB/c strain, an albino line derived from H. J. Bagg's stock and inbred starting in 1922 at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, was transferred to Jackson in the 1930s and became widely used for its susceptibility to certain tumors. Similarly, the DBA strain, tracing back to Little's 1909 colony segregating for dilute brown non-agouti coat colors, was further stabilized at Jackson during this period through selective inbreeding. These strains, among others, provided reproducible models that helped establish genetics as a rigorous experimental field, enabling precise mapping of traits and diseases. Post-World War II, the focus shifted toward standardization and diversification to meet the demands of expanding biomedical research, including and . In the 1950s, inbred rat strains gained prominence; for instance, the Lewis strain was developed by Margaret Lewis from Wistar outbred stock around 1950-1952 for studies in and transplantation, offering a new rodent model complementary to mice. Concurrently, the Committee on Standardized Nomenclature for Inbred Strains of Mice—later evolving into the International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice in —published guidelines to resolve inconsistencies in strain naming and tracking, promoting interoperability across laboratories worldwide. This era's efforts laid the groundwork for large-scale repositories like , which distributed standardized strains to support post-war advances in . By 2025, the landscape has evolved dramatically, with more than 500 distinct inbred strains cataloged in major databases, fueled by genomic sequencing initiatives and gene-editing tools like CRISPR-Cas9 that allow targeted modifications on these stable backgrounds.

Genetic Principles

Inbreeding

The inbreeding , denoted as FF, is defined as the probability that two alleles at any given locus in an individual are identical by descent from a common . This measure quantifies the extent of in a population or lineage, reflecting the reduction in due to mating between related individuals. The inbreeding coefficient for an individual is calculated using the formula F=∑(12)n(1+FA)F = \sum \left( \frac{1}{2} \right)^n (1 + F_A), where the summation is over all paths connecting the parents through common ancestors, nn is the number of individuals in each path (excluding the individual itself), and FAF_A is the coefficient of the common ancestor. This path coefficient method, developed by , accounts for multiple lines of descent and potential inbreeding in ancestors. In the development of inbred strains, full-sibling mating is a common protocol, leading to a progressive increase in FF over s. The value of FF starts at 0 in the initial outbred and rises asymptotically toward 1 as homozygosity becomes fixed. For example, under full-sibling mating, FF reaches 0.25 in the second (F2) and 0.375 in the third (F3). By the tenth , FF is approximately 0.859, and it approaches 0.99 by the twentieth , at which point the strain is conventionally considered fully inbred. The following table illustrates the increase in the coefficient FF (and the corresponding panmictic index P=1−FP = 1 - F) over of full-sibling , based on recursive probability calculations for identical-by-descent alleles:
GenerationPanmictic Index (PP)Inbreeding Coefficient (FF)
01.0000.000
11.0000.000
20.7500.250
30.6250.375
40.5000.500
50.4060.594
60.3280.672
70.2660.734
80.2150.785
90.1740.826
100.1410.859
∞0.0001.000
(Adapted from calculations in for full-sibling mating; values rounded to three decimals for clarity.) The coefficient is inversely related to expected heterozygosity, with the Ht=H0(1−F)H_t = H_0 (1 - F), where HtH_t is the heterozygosity in generation tt and H0H_0 is the initial heterozygosity under random mating. This relationship highlights how systematically reduces at the locus level, as FF increases.

Homozygosity and Uniformity

Inbred strains achieve near-complete homozygosity through repeated brother-sister matings, typically over 20 generations, resulting in greater than 98% of loci becoming homozygous by fixing specific alleles and eliminating segregation variance among individuals. After 40 generations, homozygosity exceeds 99.8% at nearly all loci, rendering the strains highly isogenic with minimal genetic differences between individuals. This genetic uniformity ensures that offspring within an inbred strain are essentially identical to their parents, promoting experimental by reducing variability attributable to genetic segregation. As a result, phenotypes are consistent across generations and cohorts, allowing researchers to attribute observed differences primarily to environmental or experimental factors rather than genetic . Despite this uniformity, residual variation persists from sources such as epigenetic modifications, which can differ even among genetically identical individuals, and minor mutations arising from during strain maintenance. These sources introduce subtle differences, but they remain minimal compared to the extensive allelic and phenotypic variation in outbred populations. In contrast to wild populations, which maintain high allelic diversity through heterozygosity and outbreeding, inbred strains exhibit a profound loss of , with alleles fixed in homozygous states across the . This fixation enhances the visibility of both advantageous and disadvantageous homozygous effects, such as the expression of recessive alleles that are typically masked in heterozygous wild individuals.

Creation and Maintenance

Breeding Protocols

The creation of inbred strains typically begins with the selection of founder animals from outbred stocks or wild populations to capture a broad range of while minimizing initial relatedness. Founders are chosen based on criteria such as health, vigor, and lack of close kinship to avoid early and ensure representation of diverse alleles; for instance, unrelated individuals from heterogeneous colonies are preferred to establish a viable starting . The standard breeding protocol involves sequential full-sib matings, primarily brother-sister pairings, initiated from a single founding pair or a small group of siblings derived from the founders. This process is carried out over at least 20 generations (F1 to F20), during which homozygosity increases progressively, reaching approximately 99% by F20 as tracked through pedigree records or, in modern protocols, to confirm genetic uniformity. An alternative to brother-sister mating is parent-offspring pairing, which achieves equivalent rates of . To expedite the timeline to F20, accelerated schemes employ , where genomic markers are used to identify and preferentially breed individuals with the highest levels of homozygosity in early generations, potentially reducing the process from years to months. The inbreeding coefficient, which quantifies this homozygosity, is monitored briefly to guide selections but approaches near-complete fixation by the target generation.

Strain Maintenance and Genetic Stability

Once an inbred strain is established, maintenance involves continued full-sib (brother-sister) mating within isolated colonies to preserve genetic uniformity. This protocol minimizes heterozygosity, with colonies typically maintained at a minimum size of approximately 25 breeding pairs per generation to reduce the risk of population bottlenecks and excessive . Larger colony sizes, such as 50 or more pairs, further enhance stability by increasing the and diluting the impact of rare mutations. Genetic drift remains a primary challenge in strain maintenance, as spontaneous mutations accumulate over generations despite inbreeding. The mutation rate is estimated at approximately 10−510^{-5} to 10−710^{-7} per locus per gamete, leading to subtle genetic variations that can alter phenotypes if unchecked. Monitoring is essential and typically involves single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays, such as 560-SNP panels, or whole-genome sequencing to detect drift and contamination early. For instance, production colonies may accumulate higher variant rates (e.g., ~7.9 × 10^{-9} per nucleotide per generation in nucleus stocks) compared to cryopreserved nucleus lines. Substrain divergence occurs when separate colonies of the same strain develop fixed genetic differences after prolonged isolation, often after 20 or more generations. A prominent example is the divergence between C57BL/6J (maintained by ) and C57BL/6N (from the ), which includes mutations like the Nnt gene deletion in the J substrain, affecting metabolic and visual phenotypes. To prevent or mitigate such divergence, strategies include periodic refreshing by to a reference strain every 5-10 generations, of embryos from nucleus stocks for periodic rederivation, and standardized distribution from central repositories. Pyramidal breeding schemes, with a frozen nucleus colony separated by up to 10 generations from production lines, also help maintain fidelity. Nomenclature rules ensure clear identification of strains and their variants, facilitating . Inbred strains are designated with unique uppercase symbols (e.g., ), while substrains append a forward slash followed by a laboratory code or serial identifier (e.g., for Jackson Laboratory origin, or C57BL/6ByJ for a specific substrain). Related strains separated before the 20th generation use linked symbols (e.g., and NZW), and progress may be noted as F# (e.g., F159). These conventions, governed by the International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice, prevent confusion in research reporting.

Types and Variants

Standard Inbred Strains

Standard inbred strains represent the foundational category of inbred lines in genetic , characterized by their derivation through repeated brother-sister matings without any intentional genetic introgressions or modifications from external sources. These strains achieve near-complete homozygosity across the entire , typically reaching a state where over 99% of loci are homozygous due to the progressive fixation of alleles through . This genetic uniformity ensures that individuals within the strain are essentially genetically identical, minimizing variability in phenotypic expression and enabling precise experimental replication. The establishment of a standard inbred strain requires at least 20 consecutive generations (F20) of sibling matings, during which all individuals can be traced back to a single ancestral pair, confirming the strain's closed pedigree and genetic stability. This criterion, formalized in guidelines, distinguishes fully inbred lines from partially inbred or outbred populations, as the approaches 1 (complete homozygosity) by F20 for most loci. Maintenance involves continued strict brother-sister mating protocols to preserve this homogeneity, with periodic genetic monitoring to detect any unintended drift. In applications, standard inbred strains serve as general models for baseline phenotypes, providing a consistent genetic background to study normal physiological processes, disease susceptibility, and environmental influences without confounding . They are commonly employed as control groups in experiments, allowing researchers to isolate the effects of specific interventions or by comparing outcomes against the strain's predictable traits. Unlike strains that incorporate recombinant mapping for quantitative trait or locus-specific alterations for targeted studies, standard inbred strains lack these engineered elements, focusing instead on whole-genome uniformity for broad applicability. For instance, while congenic strains may introduce specific genomic segments from donor lines onto this inbred background, standard strains remain unmodified from their original lineage.

Recombinant Inbred Strains

Recombinant inbred strains, also known as recombinant inbred lines (RILs), are developed by initially crossing two distinct inbred parental strains to produce F1 hybrids, which are then intercrossed to generate an F2 population. From this F2 generation, individual brother-sister pairs are selected and subjected to progressive inbreeding through 20 or more generations of sibling matings, resulting in a panel of independent, homozygous lines that capture unique mosaic combinations of the parental genomes. This process, first proposed by Donald Bailey in 1971, fixes recombination events from the F2 generation into stable genetic backgrounds suitable for long-term studies. These strains are primarily applied in quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping, where phenotypic variation across the panel is analyzed in relation to genotypic markers to identify genomic regions associated with through linkage analysis. The resulting panels serve as permanent genetic resources, enabling repeated phenotypic assessments and fine-mapping of traits without the need to regenerate crosses, which enhances in genetic . Prominent examples include the BXD series, derived from a cross between C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice, comprising approximately 100 lines used extensively for mapping behavioral and neurological traits. Another key example is the Collaborative Cross (CC), a multiparental panel developed from eight diverse founder strains to increase genetic diversity and mapping resolution for complex diseases. The fixed recombination patterns in these strains allow for high-precision QTL detection, as each line represents a unique, heritable genomic configuration that can be phenotyped multiple times across experiments.

Congenic and Coisogenic Strains

Congenic strains are inbred strains that differ from a recipient inbred background strain by a defined chromosomal segment introgressed from a donor strain, typically through repeated while selecting for the segment of interest. These strains are created to isolate the effects of specific genetic loci or regions on a genetic background, facilitating studies of function and phenotypic contributions. After at least 10 generations of (N10), the congenic strain retains approximately 99.9% of the recipient , with less than 0.1% residual donor at unlinked loci, ensuring minimal confounding . The creation of congenic strains involves during to accelerate the process and minimize donor genome retention to under 1%, often achieving this in fewer generations than traditional methods. In this protocol, progeny are genotyped at polymorphic markers flanking the target segment to select those with the desired donor alleles while favoring recipient alleles elsewhere, reducing the time from years to months. Standard for congenic strains, as recommended by the International Committee on Standardized Genetic Nomenclature for Mice, uses the format "background.abbreviated-donor-gene symbol," such as B6.Cg-Foxp2^tm1.1(cre)Rpa for a C57BL/6J background with a Foxp2-targeted insertion from a different strain. These strains are particularly valuable for dissecting the of candidate genes in traits like susceptibility or by comparing them directly to the background strain. Coisogenic strains, in contrast, arise from a spontaneous or induced at a single locus within an existing inbred strain, resulting in strains that are genetically identical except at that mutated locus. Unlike congenic strains, no donor is involved; the mutation occurs endogenously, making coisogenic strains ideal for studying the precise effects of a single genetic alteration without background variability. A classic example is the C57BL/6J-Tyrc-2J/J strain, which carries an inactivating in the (Tyr^c-2J) causing , differing from the parental C57BL/6J only at this locus.

Biological and Phenotypic Effects

Advantages for Research

Inbred strains provide significant advantages in due to their high degree of genetic uniformity, which arises from extensive that minimizes allelic variation within the . This uniformity reduces both genetic and environmental variance, enabling researchers to establish precise correlations between genotypes and phenotypes by isolating the effects of specific experimental variables. For instance, standardized inbred strain backgrounds ensure experimental across laboratories and experiments, allowing consistent outcomes that facilitate mechanistic investigations and validation of findings. As model organisms, inbred strains are particularly valuable for disease modeling because their uniform genetic makeup leads to predictable and homogeneous responses to interventions, enhancing statistical power and requiring fewer animals to achieve reliable results. This consistency allows for the detection of subtle phenotypic effects that might be obscured in more variable populations, making inbred strains ideal for studying and mechanisms. In infectious research, for example, the genetic stability of inbred mice supports the development of fully characterized immune responses, contributing to more efficient modeling of pathologies. The fixed genomes of inbred strains greatly facilitate genetic mapping techniques, such as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis, by providing a stable reference for identifying causal variants. Panels of inbred strains offer high mapping resolution compared to traditional crosses, as the strains' at key loci allows for efficient pinpointing of genetic contributions to traits without heterozygosity. This approach is especially useful for phenotyping, where the uniform background isolates the impact of introduced mutations. From an ethical standpoint, the low variability in inbred strains reduces the number of animals required for experiments, aligning with principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) by minimizing animal use while maintaining robust data. In vaccine testing, this efficiency is evident, as inbred strains like or enable reproducible assessments of and with smaller cohorts, ensuring reliable translation to clinical applications.

Inbreeding Depression and Limitations

Inbreeding depression in inbred strains arises from the increased homozygosity that exposes recessive deleterious alleles, resulting in reduced fitness across key biological traits such as , viability, and lifespan. In mice, this manifests as notably lower reproductive output, with inbred breeders typically producing only 3 to 9 pups per litter, in contrast to the higher yields observed in outbred populations. Viability is similarly compromised, as evidenced by elevated rates of embryonic and postnatal mortality due to the expression of harmful recessive variants. Furthermore, the reproductive lifespan is shortened; for instance, wild house mice remain fertile for approximately 700 days, whereas fully inbred lines exhibit fertility limited to about 570 days. Inbred strains accumulate and fix unique deleterious mutations over generations of brother-sister mating, leading to strain-specific genetic burdens that contribute to phenotypic abnormalities. Analysis of 36 sequenced inbred strains reveals hundreds of protein-inactivating variants per strain, including stop-gain, stop-loss, and frameshift s that disrupt function. For example, the C57BL/6J strain carries variants associated with metabolic dysregulation, contributing to its heightened susceptibility to diet-induced and impaired glucose tolerance, as seen with the Cyb5r4 Y356C . Similarly, the FVB/NJ strain harbors over 240 stop-gain s, some of which underlie resistance or sensitivity to conditions like . These fixed s, often numbering in the hundreds to low thousands of deleterious protein-coding changes per strain, underscore the genetic costs of prolonged . Despite their utility, inbred strains have inherent limitations that constrain their applicability in . Their genetic uniformity fails to replicate the extensive heterogeneity characteristic of populations, thereby reducing the of findings for translation to diverse clinical contexts. Additionally, fixed deleterious alleles render strains hypersusceptible to particular diseases or environmental stressors; for instance, certain lines exhibit exacerbated responses to pathogens or toxins absent in outbred models. This often necessitates in experimental designs to introduce variability and better approximate real-world conditions. To counteract inbreeding depression and its limitations, researchers employ strategies such as generating F1 hybrid crosses between distinct inbred strains, which leverage hybrid vigor (heterosis) to mask recessive deleterious alleles and restore fitness levels closer to those of outbred populations. More recently, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing has enabled targeted repair of specific deleterious mutations within inbred backgrounds, exemplified by the correction of the Cdh23^{ahl} allele in C57BL/6N mice to ameliorate age-related hearing loss. These approaches help mitigate the biological drawbacks while preserving the strains' experimental advantages.

Applications in Research

Biomedical and Genetic Studies

Inbred strains are essential for creating genetically uniform backgrounds that enable precise knock-in and knock-out models for studying disease mechanisms, particularly in cancers and autoimmune disorders like . For instance, the NOD mouse strain serves as a widely used model for due to its spontaneous development of autoimmune pancreatic insulitis, allowing researchers to investigate beta-cell destruction on a consistent genetic foundation. Knock-out variants, such as those targeting immune regulatory genes in NOD congenic strains, have revealed protective effects against diabetes progression by modulating T-cell responses. Similarly, in , inbred strains like facilitate the generation of targeted knock-ins to model oncogenic mutations, providing insights into tumor initiation and progression without confounding genetic variability. In genetic studies, inbred strains underpin (QTL) analysis, which maps polygenic traits by crossing strains and analyzing recombinant progeny to identify chromosomal regions influencing phenotypes such as disease susceptibility. Their genetic homogeneity also supports transgenic approaches, where consistent backgrounds ensure that observed effects stem from the introduced genetic modifications rather than strain-specific interactions. Inbred strains played a pivotal role in the Genome Sequencing Consortium's efforts, with the full sequencing of the C57BL/6J strain in 2002 providing a that accelerated and functional across mammalian . For aging research, strains like are favored for their well-characterized trajectories, enabling longitudinal studies of age-related physiological declines in muscle function, , and overall survival. In immunology, these strains standardize immune responses, particularly Th1-biased profiles, which facilitate reproducible investigations of innate and adaptive immunity without inter-individual variability. Recent advances integrate inbred strains with technologies to uncover tissue-specific genetic insights post-2020. For example, single-nucleus RNA sequencing of from diverse inbred mouse strains has highlighted strain-dependent variations in cell-type composition, such as and endothelial cells, informing disease modeling. Similarly, single-cell profiling across multiple strains has prioritized mutations driving epigenetic heterogeneity in neural tissues, enhancing understanding of genetic regulation at cellular resolution.

Toxicology and Pharmacology

In toxicology, inbred strains provide standardized and reproducible responses in lethality assays, such as the determination of the (LD50), due to their genetic uniformity, which reduces inter-individual variability in toxic endpoints. This consistency allows for more precise quantification of thresholds compared to outbred stocks, where can lead to wide ranges in sensitivity; for example, the LD50 of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) varies by nearly three orders of magnitude across different strains. The Fischer 344 (F344) , an inbred strain, has been a cornerstone in regulatory , particularly for screening and long-term bioassays conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), where its predictable tumor susceptibility and metabolic profiles facilitate reliable detection of neoplastic and non-neoplastic effects over two-year studies. In , the homogeneity of inbred strains supports consistent evaluation of dose-response curves, enabling accurate modeling of drug , , and adverse effects without confounding genetic noise. This uniformity is especially beneficial in preclinical safety assessments, where reproducible pharmacodynamic profiles inform dosing regimens and predict therapeutic windows. For development, the BALB/c strain is frequently employed owing to its inherent Th2-biased , which favors antibody-mediated immunity and mirrors certain human humoral responses, allowing for standardized testing of vaccine-induced protection against pathogens like SARS-CoV-2. Regulatory guidelines, including those from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (), advocate for the use of characterized strains in testing to enhance data reproducibility and inter-laboratory comparability in and evaluations, with inbred strains often preferred for their genetic stability in protocols like repeated-dose and studies. However, the translational limitations of relying on a single inbred strain—stemming from its inability to capture population-level —have prompted the adoption of multi-strain panels to better approximate in drug responses and profiles. Approaches such as Mouse Clinical Trials, which test compounds across diverse inbred or hybrid mouse cohorts, improve predictive power for clinical outcomes by identifying strain-specific sensitivities that correlate with human pharmacogenetic differences.

Notable Inbred Strains by Species

Rodents

Inbred strains are among the most extensively utilized in biomedical research due to their genetic uniformity and well-characterized phenotypes. The strain, often denoted as C57BL/6J, features a black coat and is the most widely used inbred line, serving as the genetic background for nearly half of all genetically engineered models and appearing in a substantial portion of studies across fields like , , and . Its genome was the first among mice to be fully sequenced, facilitating precise genetic manipulations and comparative analyses. The strain, characterized by its albino coat, is another prominent inbred line valued for its docile disposition and utility in immunological investigations, particularly as a model for allergic responses and due to its Th2-biased immune profile. mice exhibit resistance to certain demyelinating conditions like experimental allergic encephalomyelitis, making them suitable for studying infectious diseases and efficacy. DBA/2, or DBA/2J, represents a dilute brown-coated inbred prone to audiogenic seizures, especially in juveniles, due to genetic factors like the asp2 , which renders it a key model for research and auditory processing disorders. This susceptibility decreases with age, allowing temporal studies of neurological development. Among inbred strains, the 344 (F344) stands out as a standard for and carcinogenicity assessments, having been employed by the National Toxicology Program for over five decades in studies owing to its low spontaneous tumor incidence and consistent physiological responses. Its albino coat and inbred status ensure reproducibility in evaluating chemical exposures and aging-related pathologies. The Lewis rat is highly susceptible to Th1-mediated autoimmune conditions, such as experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and , making it an essential model for dissecting inflammatory and immune-mediated diseases. This strain's predisposition stems from its genetic profile, which promotes robust T-cell responses to self-antigens. The Wistar rat, while typically outbred or semi-inbred depending on the subline, serves as a general-purpose model in physiological and behavioral studies due to its moderate size, adaptability, and historical prevalence in early and experiments. Inbred derivatives like Wistar-Kyoto provide enhanced genetic stability for and cardiovascular research. Inbred guinea pig strains, though less common in contemporary research, include historical lines like Strain 2 and Strain 13, which were pivotal in early tuberculosis studies for their differential immune responses to , enabling investigations into formation and . These strains exhibit well-defined MHC haplotypes (e.g., Strain 13's high responsiveness), but their use has declined in modern settings due to higher maintenance costs, longer gestation periods, and the dominance of more economical models like mice. Rodents comprise the majority of animals used in laboratory research, accounting for about 85% of those in U.S. studies and 90% in federal programs as of 1986, offering cost-effective, genetically homogeneous platforms for high-throughput experiments. Repositories such as maintain extensive collections of these strains, ensuring global availability and standardization for reproducible .

Fish

Inbred strains of fish, particularly medaka (Oryzias latipes) and zebrafish (Danio rerio), serve as valuable models in developmental genetics and environmental toxicology due to their genetic uniformity and physiological traits suited for high-throughput studies. Medaka inbred strains such as Hd-rR, derived from southern Japanese populations, have been extensively used to investigate radiation-induced effects, including neurocytotoxic responses to iron ions and histological changes in gonadal tissues following UVA exposure. Similarly, the ST strain of medaka facilitates research on intercellular signaling in response to ionizing radiation, where irradiated individuals communicate stress signals to unexposed conspecifics, leading to elevated DNA damage in bystander fish. These strains' small size—medaka adults typically measure 2-3 cm—enables efficient high-throughput screening for genotoxicants and developmental disruptors, allowing researchers to process hundreds of individuals in parallel assays. Zebrafish inbred strains like AB and TU, which exhibit high homozygosity (approximately 80% at polymorphic loci), provide stable genetic backgrounds for embryological research, minimizing variability in phenotypes and facilitating reproducible outcomes in forward and . The transparency of zebrafish embryos and larvae, particularly in these strains, permits non-invasive imaging of and cellular processes , making them ideal for studying early developmental events such as formation and cardiovascular patterning. Inbreeding in AB and TU strains enhances stability by reducing heterozygosity, which can otherwise mask recessive alleles, thus supporting precise mapping of gene functions in large-scale screens. Key advantages of fish inbred strains include external fertilization, which simplifies experimental manipulation of gametes and embryos without surgical intervention, and short generation times of 2-3 months, accelerating multigenerational studies compared to longer-lived models. These features are particularly beneficial in , where strains like medaka Hd-rR and AB have been employed to assess chronic low-dose effects of pollutants, such as endocrine disruptors and , on and development. The International Resource Center (ZIRC) maintains repositories of these strains, distributing AB, TU, and related lines to global researchers to ensure standardized access and genetic integrity.

Other Organisms

In Drosophila melanogaster, Canton-S and Oregon-R serve as foundational wild-type laboratory strains, maintained through brother-sister mating or mass breeding to achieve genetic uniformity suitable for behavioral and neurogenetic studies. Substrains of Canton-S, such as those analyzed for locomotor activity in Buridan's paradigm, reveal subtle genetic divergences that influence walking patterns and highlight the role of background genetics in phenotype stability. The Drosophila Genetic Reference Panel (DGRP), comprising 205 sequenced inbred lines derived from a Raleigh, North Carolina population via 20 generations of full-sib mating, has been pivotal in dissecting the genetic basis of behaviors like mating success and sleep duration, enabling genome-wide association studies for complex traits. Additionally, GAL4 driver lines, often backcrossed onto inbred backgrounds like those from the DGRP or standard strains, facilitate targeted gene expression in neural circuits to probe behavioral mechanisms, such as pheromone sensitivity in courtship. In plants, inbred strains underpin quantitative genetics research, particularly through recombinant inbred lines (RILs) that fix allelic combinations for trait mapping. The Arabidopsis thaliana Col-0 ecotype, an inbred accession from the Columbia lineage, acts as a reference parent in numerous RIL populations, such as the Bay-0 × Shahdara set, where it supports high-resolution QTL mapping for developmental and metabolic traits like seed mineral concentrations and flowering time. In tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), RILs derived from interspecific or intraspecific crosses, such as those between cultivated and wild relatives, enable linkage mapping of fruit quality loci and disease resistance, with over 100 lines typically advanced to homozygosity via single-seed descent. Maize (Zea mays) employs large RIL panels, including the nested association mapping (NAM) population of ~5,000 lines from 25 diverse B73-derived founders, to identify QTLs for stress responses like drought tolerance, where specific lines (e.g., RIL70) exhibit enhanced root architecture and survival under water deficit. Among other animals, (Oryctolagus cuniculus) have limited fully inbred strains due to their extended generation intervals of ~4-5 months, which complicate achieving >99% homozygosity compared to . Nonetheless, pedigreed lines with defined immunoglobulin allotypes, selectively bred from non-inbred founders, model autoimmune conditions like systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), producing autoantibodies against nuclear antigens and mimicking human disease progression in ~30-50% of immunized individuals. These models, such as those from the Laboratory of colony, reveal genetic contributions to autoantibody specificity, with dominant allotypes influencing SLE-like and . Emerging invertebrate models include nematodes like , where wild-type isolates are inbred to homozygosity for aging research. The N2 Bristol strain, the canonical lab wild-type established in the and maintained via selfing, displays lifespan variability across isolates (12-18 days at 20°C), allowing of environmental-genetic interactions in . Recombinant inbred advanced intercross lines (RIAILs) from crosses of diverse wild isolates, such as CB4856 () and N2, have identified 1 significant QTL for lifespan on Chromosome II, along with suggestive QTLs for age-related phenotypes like mobility decline. These inbred panels, genotyped at ~600 kb resolution, facilitate high-content imaging to link genetic variation to molecular regulators of somatic maintenance during aging.

References

  1. https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services/customer-support/technical-support/genetics-and-nomenclature/inbred-mice
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/inbred-strain
  3. https://www.criver.com/products-services/research-models-services/animal-models/mice/inbred-mice
  4. https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2013/october/inbred-mice-genetic-tools-for-modeling-infectious-diseases
  5. https://rgd.mcw.edu/nomen/cnt_rules-for-nomen.shtml
  6. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01070001
  7. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/inbred-mouse-strains-and-genetic-stability-a-review/3264C8D84306C8EBD7C3CA6FF5921692
  8. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0192623310373776
  9. https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services/customer-support/technical-support/strain-background-and-genetic-drift
  10. https://nc3rs.org.uk/3rs-resources/breeding-and-colony-management/colony-management-glossary
  11. https://www.nature.com/articles/35009167
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1600613522071581
  13. http://www.informatics.jax.org/morsebook/chapters/russell.shtml
  14. https://www.cancerresearch.org/blog/birth-of-the-lab-mouse
  15. https://www.jax.org/strain/000671
  16. https://www.informatics.jax.org/morsebook/frames/frame29.shtml
  17. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1706168114
  18. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-04064-8
  19. https://iastate.pressbooks.pub/quantitativegenetics/chapter/resemblance-between-relatives/
  20. https://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/strains.shtml
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7150197/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10184519/
  23. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3906716/
  24. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-020-00361-1
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3625632/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5266702/
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04869-1
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11034653/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/inbred-mouse-strain
  30. http://www.princeton.edu/~lsilver/book/MG3.html
  31. http://www.informatics.jax.org/greenbook/chapters/chapter2.shtml
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/inbred-strain
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3284326/
  34. https://www.gv-solas.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-05_gen_speed-kongene_e.pdf
  35. https://www.mcgill.ca/research/files/research/breeding_module_handout_oct_2020.pdf
  36. https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2018/april/how-to-refresh-your-mutant-or-transgenic-mouse-strains
  37. https://sea.umh.es/files/2019/01/Whitepaper_Genetic-variability-in-inbred-mice.pdf
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7852876/
  39. https://www.nap.edu/download/20528
  40. https://rgd.mcw.edu/nomen/rules-for-nomen.shtml
  41. https://www.informatics.jax.org/silver/chapters/3-2.shtml
  42. https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2003/october/the-importance-of-understanding-substrains-in-the-genomic-age
  43. https://www.informatics.jax.org/silver/chapters/9-2.shtml
  44. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224550/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4073892/
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224918247_Design_and_Construction_of_Recombinant_Inbred_Lines
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5558564/
  48. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2001-2-8-preprint0007
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405471220305032
  50. https://academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article/52/1/24/648953
  51. https://www.informatics.jax.org/glossary/congenic
  52. https://herzenberglab.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj27506/files/media/file/lah417.pdf
  53. https://health.uconn.edu/mouse-genome-modification/resources/congenic-mouse-strains/
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2659429/
  55. https://www.jax.org/strain/030541
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7560043/
  57. https://www.informatics.jax.org/glossary/coisogenic
  58. https://www.informatics.jax.org/silver/chapters/3-3.shtml
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2574750/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10542534/
  61. https://academic.oup.com/ilarjournal/article/55/3/399/644168
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4873164/
  63. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/12/1/103
  64. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.19.508548v1.full-text
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6518396/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4722345/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6124530/
  68. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9260142/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6236330/
  70. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0273-4
  71. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-025-06579-0
  72. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.874769/full
  73. https://www.taconic.com/resources/genetic-variation-c57bl6-es-cells-knockout-mice
  74. https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/2004/october/qtl-mapping-in-the-inbred-mouse-the-key-to-understanding-complex-traits-in
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC154569/
  76. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34515-y
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5527137/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12393717/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10726494/
  80. https://www.isogenic.info/html/toxicity_testing.html
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5020328/
  82. https://www.inotiv.com/hubfs/resources/data-sheets/5193-180-envigo-leaflets-2016-f344-lr.pdf
  83. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-025-01156-3
  84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472979213202945
  85. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/iccvam/suppdocs/feddocs/oecd/oecd_gl421.pdf
  86. https://www.jax.org/strain/000664
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4944652/
  88. https://www.inotiv.com/research-models/balbc-mice
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7006295/
  90. https://www.jax.org/strain/000651
  91. https://janvier-labs.com/en/fiche_produit/dba2_mouse/
  92. http://www.informatics.jax.org/inbred_strains/rat/docs/F344.shtml
  93. https://www.inotiv.com/research-model/f344-nhsd
  94. https://janvier-labs.com/en/fiche_produit/lewis_rat/
  95. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/lewis-rat
  96. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8505411/
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/wistar-rat
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3727021/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2706043/
  100. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02593/full
  101. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264410X12010146
  102. https://maze.conductscience.com/guinea-pig-animal-model/
  103. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218261/
  104. http://www.informatics.jax.org/inbred_strains/
  105. https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2567387/
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4156027/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224010599
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6829147/
  110. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004318
  111. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00222001
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8486247/
  113. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.981815/full
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2561998/
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165242708002262
  116. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20213/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11996002/
  118. https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/pdf/S2211-1247%2824%2901187-2.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.