Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Tools for genetics and genomics: Specially bred and genetically engineered mice

Robert D Blank, MD, PhD
Section Editor
Benjamin A Raby, MD, MPH
Deputy Editor
Jennifer S Tirnauer, MD


Laboratory mice are among the most widely used model systems in biomedical research.

The breeding strategies and genetics of laboratory mice are introduced in this topic review. Detailed information regarding specific mouse strains and breeding constructs are available online at The Jackson Laboratory website.

Other model systems for studying human disease are discussed separately (eg, yeast, worm, fruit fly, zebrafish). (See "Tools for genetics and genomics: Model systems".)


Strains of inbred mice are model organisms for genetic studies, with hundreds of inbred strains in existence. For the purposes of genetic investigations, the key properties of inbred mice are that they are essentially isogenic and homozygous. Isogenicity means that sex-matched individuals have the same genotype across the entire genome. Homozygosity means that both chromosomes carry the same allele of each locus.

Concepts of inbreeding were introduced in a classic paper from 1931 [1]. A brief summary of the principles and standards of inbreeding includes the following:

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Jun 23, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Haldane JB, Waddington CH. Inbreeding and Linkage. Genetics 1931; 16:357.
  2. Broman KW. The genomes of recombinant inbred lines. Genetics 2005; 169:1133.
  3. RODERICK TH. Selection for radiation resistance in mice. Genetics 1963; 48:205.
  4. Darvasi A, Soller M. Advanced intercross lines, an experimental population for fine genetic mapping. Genetics 1995; 141:1199.
  5. Taylor BA. Recombinant inbred strains: Use in gene mapping. In: Origins of Inbred Mice, Morse HC (Ed), Academic Press, New York 1978. p.423.
  6. Bailey DW. Recombinant inbred strains and bilineal congenic strains. In: The Mouse in Biomedical Research, Foster HL, Small JD, Fox JG (Eds), Academic Press, New York 1981. p.223.
  7. Silver LM. Mouse Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York 1995.
  8. Blake JA, Eppig JT, Richardson JE, et al. The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): integration nexus for the laboratory mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 2001; 29:91.
  9. Plomin R, McClearn GE, Gora-Maslak G, Neiderhiser JM. Use of recombinant inbred strains to detect quantitative trait loci associated with behavior. Behav Genet 1991; 21:99.
  10. Darvasi A. Experimental strategies for the genetic dissection of complex traits in animal models. Nat Genet 1998; 18:19.
  11. Flaherty L. Congenic Strains. In: The Mouse in Biomedical Research: History, Genetics, and Wild Mice, Small JD, Fox JG (Eds), Academic Press, New York 1981. p.215.
  12. Visscher PM. Speed congenics: accelerated genome recovery using genetic markers. Genet Res 1999; 74:81.
  13. Wakeland E, Morel L, Achey K, et al. Speed congenics: a classic technique in the fast lane (relatively speaking). Immunol Today 1997; 18:472.
  14. Markel P, Shu P, Ebeling C, et al. Theoretical and empirical issues for marker-assisted breeding of congenic mouse strains. Nat Genet 1997; 17:280.
  15. Démant P, Hart AA. Recombinant congenic strains--a new tool for analyzing genetic traits determined by more than one gene. Immunogenetics 1986; 24:416.
  16. van Zutphen LF, Den Bieman M, Lankhorst A, Demant P. Segregation of genes from donor strain during the production of recombinant congenic strains. Lab Anim 1991; 25:193.
  17. Moen CJ, van der Valk MA, Snoek M, et al. The recombinant congenic strains--a novel genetic tool applied to the study of colon tumor development in the mouse. Mamm Genome 1991; 1:217.
  18. Fijneman RJ, de Vries SS, Jansen RC, Demant P. Complex interactions of new quantitative trait loci, Sluc1, Sluc2, Sluc3, and Sluc4, that influence the susceptibility to lung cancer in the mouse. Nat Genet 1996; 14:465.
  19. van Wezel T, Stassen AP, Moen CJ, et al. Gene interaction and single gene effects in colon tumour susceptibility in mice. Nat Genet 1996; 14:468.
  20. Frankel WN, Schork NJ. Who's afraid of epistasis? Nat Genet 1996; 14:371.
  21. Nadeau JH, Singer JB, Matin A, Lander ES. Analysing complex genetic traits with chromosome substitution strains. Nat Genet 2000; 24:221.
  22. Hudgins CC, Steinberg RT, Klinman DM, et al. Studies of consomic mice bearing the Y chromosome of the BXSB mouse. J Immunol 1985; 134:3849.
  23. Eales BA, Nahas M, Biddle FG. Directional dominance and a developmental model for the expression of the Tda testis-determining autosomal trait of the mouse. Genome 1996; 39:520.
  24. Matin A, Collin GB, Asada Y, et al. Susceptibility to testicular germ-cell tumours in a 129.MOLF-Chr 19 chromosome substitution strain. Nat Genet 1999; 23:237.
  25. Ulbrich M, Schmidt VC, Ronsiek M, et al. Genetic modifiers that aggravate the neurological phenotype of the wobbler mouse. Neuroreport 2002; 13:535.
  26. Churchill GA, Airey DC, Allayee H, et al. The Collaborative Cross, a community resource for the genetic analysis of complex traits. Nat Genet 2004; 36:1133.
  27. Morahan G, Balmer L, Monley D. Establishment of "The Gene Mine": a resource for rapid identification of complex trait genes. Mamm Genome 2008; 19:390.
  28. Chesler EJ, Miller DR, Branstetter LR, et al. The Collaborative Cross at Oak Ridge National Laboratory: developing a powerful resource for systems genetics. Mamm Genome 2008; 19:382.
  29. Iraqi FA, Churchill G, Mott R. The Collaborative Cross, developing a resource for mammalian systems genetics: a status report of the Wellcome Trust cohort. Mamm Genome 2008; 19:379.
  30. Collaborative Cross Consortium. The genome architecture of the Collaborative Cross mouse genetic reference population. Genetics 2012; 190:389.
  31. Aylor DL, Valdar W, Foulds-Mathes W, et al. Genetic analysis of complex traits in the emerging Collaborative Cross. Genome Res 2011; 21:1213.
  32. Svenson KL, Gatti DM, Valdar W, et al. High-resolution genetic mapping using the Mouse Diversity outbred population. Genetics 2012; 190:437.
  33. Acevedo-Arozena A, Wells S, Potter P, et al. ENU mutagenesis, a way forward to understand gene function. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2008; 9:49.
  34. Smits P, Bolton AD, Funari V, et al. Lethal skeletal dysplasia in mice and humans lacking the golgin GMAP-210. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:206.
  35. Ausubel FM, Brent R, Kingston RE, et al. Current Protocols in Molecular Biology. In: Current Protocols, Janssen (Ed), Greene Publishing Associates, Inc. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York 1996.
  36. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, Cold Spring Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 1989.
  37. Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach, 2nd ed, Joyner AL (Ed), Oxford University Press, New York 2000.
  38. Manipulating the Mouse Embryo: Laboratory Manual, Hogan B, Beddington R, Costantini F, Lacy E (Eds), Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 1994.
  39. Mouse Genetics and Transgenics: A Practical Approach, Jackson IJ, Abbott CM (Eds), Oxford University Press, New York 2000.
  40. Bradley A, Evans M, Kaufman MH, Robertson E. Formation of germ-line chimaeras from embryo-derived teratocarcinoma cell lines. Nature 1984; 309:255.
  41. Robertson E, Bradley A, Kuehn M, Evans M. Germ-line transmission of genes introduced into cultured pluripotential cells by retroviral vector. Nature 1986; 323:445.
  42. Martin GR. 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 1981; 78:7634.
  43. Hardin JD, Boast S, Mendelsohn M, et al. Transgenes encoding both type I and type IV c-abl proteins rescue the lethality of c-abl mutant mice. Oncogene 1996; 12:2669.
  44. Kalajzic I, Kalajzic Z, Kaliterna M, et al. Use of type I collagen green fluorescent protein transgenes to identify subpopulations of cells at different stages of the osteoblast lineage. J Bone Miner Res 2002; 17:15.
  45. Chai Y, Jiang X, Ito Y, et al. Fate of the mammalian cranial neural crest during tooth and mandibular morphogenesis. Development 2000; 127:1671.
  46. Snippert HJ, van der Flier LG, Sato T, et al. Intestinal crypt homeostasis results from neutral competition between symmetrically dividing Lgr5 stem cells. Cell 2010; 143:134.
  47. Khillan JS, Olsen AS, Kontusaari S, et al. Transgenic mice that express a mini-gene version of the human gene for type I procollagen (COL1A1) develop a phenotype resembling a lethal form of osteogenesis imperfecta. J Biol Chem 1991; 266:23373.
  48. Taketo M, Schroeder AC, Mobraaten LE, et al. FVB/N: an inbred mouse strain preferable for transgenic analyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1991; 88:2065.
  49. Mansour SL, Thomas KR, Capecchi MR. Disruption of the proto-oncogene int-2 in mouse embryo-derived stem cells: a general strategy for targeting mutations to non-selectable genes. Nature 1988; 336:348.
  50. Adams DJ, Quail MA, Cox T, et al. A genome-wide, end-sequenced 129Sv BAC library resource for targeting vector construction. Genomics 2005; 86:753.
  51. Liu P, Jenkins NA, Copeland NG. A highly efficient recombineering-based method for generating conditional knockout mutations. Genome Res 2003; 13:476.
  52. Maggio I, Gonçalves MA. Genome editing at the crossroads of delivery, specificity, and fidelity. Trends Biotechnol 2015; 33:280.
  53. Fedorov LM, Tyrsin OY, Krenn V, et al. Tet-system for the regulation of gene expression during embryonic development. Transgenic Res 2001; 10:247.
  54. Bohl D, Heard JM. Modulation of erythropoietin delivery from engineered muscles in mice. Hum Gene Ther 1997; 8:195.
  55. Paulus W, Baur I, Boyce FM, et al. Self-contained, tetracycline-regulated retroviral vector system for gene delivery to mammalian cells. J Virol 1996; 70:62.
  56. Hoess RH, Ziese M, Sternberg N. P1 site-specific recombination: nucleotide sequence of the recombining sites. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1982; 79:3398.
  57. Rajewsky K, Gu H, Kühn R, et al. Conditional gene targeting. J Clin Invest 1996; 98:600.
  58. Rossant J, McMahon A. "Cre"-ating mouse mutants-a meeting review on conditional mouse genetics. Genes Dev 1999; 13:142.
  59. Soriano P. Generalized lacZ expression with the ROSA26 Cre reporter strain. Nat Genet 1999; 21:70.
  60. Lobe CG, Koop KE, Kreppner W, et al. Z/AP, a double reporter for cre-mediated recombination. Dev Biol 1999; 208:281.
  61. Mao X, Fujiwara Y, Orkin SH. Improved reporter strain for monitoring Cre recombinase-mediated DNA excisions in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999; 96:5037.
  62. Kawamoto S, Niwa H, Tashiro F, et al. A novel reporter mouse strain that expresses enhanced green fluorescent protein upon Cre-mediated recombination. FEBS Lett 2000; 470:263.
  63. Novak A, Guo C, Yang W, et al. Z/EG, a double reporter mouse line that expresses enhanced green fluorescent protein upon Cre-mediated excision. Genesis 2000; 28:147.
  64. Mao X, Fujiwara Y, Chapdelaine A, et al. Activation of EGFP expression by Cre-mediated excision in a new ROSA26 reporter mouse strain. Blood 2001; 97:324.
  65. Srinivas S, Watanabe T, Lin CS, et al. Cre reporter strains produced by targeted insertion of EYFP and ECFP into the ROSA26 locus. BMC Dev Biol 2001; 1:4.
  66. Schnütgen F, De-Zolt S, Van Sloun P, et al. Genomewide production of multipurpose alleles for the functional analysis of the mouse genome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005; 102:7221.
  67. Schnütgen F. Generation of multipurpose alleles for the functional analysis of the mouse genome. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2006; 5:15.
  68. Floss T, Schnütgen F. Conditional gene trapping using the FLEx system. Methods Mol Biol 2008; 435:127.
  69. Friedel RH, Seisenberger C, Kaloff C, Wurst W. EUCOMM--the European conditional mouse mutagenesis program. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2007; 6:180.
  70. DasGupta R, Fuchs E. Multiple roles for activated LEF/TCF transcription complexes during hair follicle development and differentiation. Development 1999; 126:4557.
  71. Nagy A, Rossant J, Nagy R, et al. Derivation of completely cell culture-derived mice from early-passage embryonic stem cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1993; 90:8424.
  72. Nagy A, Rossant J. Production of completely ES cell-derived fetuses. In: Gene Targeting: A Practical Approach, Joyner AL (Ed), Oxford University Press, New York 1993. p.147.
  73. Duncan SA, Nagy A, Chan W. Murine gastrulation requires HNF-4 regulated gene expression in the visceral endoderm: tetraploid rescue of Hnf-4(-/-) embryos. Development 1997; 124:279.
  74. Li J, Ning G, Duncan SA. Mammalian hepatocyte differentiation requires the transcription factor HNF-4alpha. Genes Dev 2000; 14:464.
  75. Threadgill DW, Yee D, Matin A, et al. Genealogy of the 129 inbred strains: 129/SvJ is a contaminated inbred strain. Mamm Genome 1997; 8:390.
  76. Simpson EM, Linder CC, Sargent EE, et al. Genetic variation among 129 substrains and its importance for targeted mutagenesis in mice. Nat Genet 1997; 16:19.
  77. Threadgill DW, Matin A, Yee D, et al. SSLPs to map genetic differences between the 129 inbred strains and closed-colony, random-bred CD-1 mice. Mamm Genome 1997; 8:441.
  78. Festing MF, Simpson EM, Davisson MT, Mobraaten LE. Revised nomenclature for strain 129 mice. Mamm Genome 1999; 10:836.
  79. Tutois S, Salaun J, Mattei MG, Guénet JL. Tg (9 HSA-MYC), a homozygous lethal insertion in the mouse. Mamm Genome 1991; 1:184.
  80. DeLoia JA, Solter D. A transgene insertional mutation at an imprinted locus in the mouse genome. Dev Suppl 1990; :73.
  81. Bronson SK, Plaehn EG, Kluckman KD, et al. Single-copy transgenic mice with chosen-site integration. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1996; 93:9067.
  82. Misra RP, Bronson SK, Xiao Q, et al. Generation of single-copy transgenic mouse embryos directly from ES cells by tetraploid embryo complementation. BMC Biotechnol 2001; 1:12.
  83. Kitani H, Takagi N, Atsumi T, et al. Isolation of a germline-transmissible embryonic stem (ES) cell line from C3H/He mice. Zoolog Sci 1996; 13:865.
  84. Schuster-Gossler K, Lee AW, Lerner CP, et al. Use of coisogenic host blastocysts for efficient establishment of germline chimeras with C57BL/6J ES cell lines. Biotechniques 2001; 31:1022.
  85. Jeffery E, Berry R, Church CD, et al. Characterization of Cre recombinase models for the study of adipose tissue. Adipocyte 2014; 3:206.
  86. Kristianto J, Johnson MG, Zastrow RK, et al. Spontaneous recombinase activity of Cre-ERT2 in vivo. Transgenic Res 2017; 26:411.
  87. Schmidt-Supprian M, Rajewsky K. Vagaries of conditional gene targeting. Nat Immunol 2007; 8:665.
  88. Loonstra A, Vooijs M, Beverloo HB, et al. Growth inhibition and DNA damage induced by Cre recombinase in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001; 98:9209.
  89. Jeannotte L, Aubin J, Bourque S, et al. Unsuspected effects of a lung-specific Cre deleter mouse line. Genesis 2011; 49:152.
  90. Thanos A, Morizane Y, Murakami Y, et al. Evidence for baseline retinal pigment epithelium pathology in the Trp1-Cre mouse. Am J Pathol 2012; 180:1917.
  91. Li Y, Choi PS, Casey SC, Felsher DW. Activation of Cre recombinase alone can induce complete tumor regression. PLoS One 2014; 9:e107589.
  92. Kretzschmar K, Watt FM. Lineage tracing. Cell 2012; 148:33.
  93. Heffner CS, Herbert Pratt C, Babiuk RP, et al. Supporting conditional mouse mutagenesis with a comprehensive cre characterization resource. Nat Commun 2012; 3:1218.