Mouse Model Systems of Autism Spectrum Disorder: Replicability and Informatics Signature

Abstract

3.BackgroundPhenotyping mouse model systems of human disease has proven to be a difficult task, with frequent poor inter- and intra-laboratory replicability and translatability, particularly in behavioral domains such as social and verbal function. However, establishing robust animal model systems with strong construct validity is of fundamental importance as they are central tools for understanding disease pathophysiology and developing therapeutics. To complete our studies of mouse model systems relevant to autism spectrum disorder (ASD), we present a replication of the main findings from our two published studies comprising five genetic mouse model systems of ASD. MethodsTo assess the robustness of our previous results, we chose the two model systems that showed the greatest phenotypic differences, the Shank3/F and Cntnap2, and repeated assessments of general health, activity, and social behavior. We additionally explored all five model systems in the same framework, comparing all results obtained in this three-yearlong effort using informatics techniques to look for commonalities and differences. ResultsResults in the current study were very similar to our previously published results. The informatics signatures of the two model systems chosen for the replication showed that they were most distinguished by activity levels. Although the two model systems were opposite in this regard, those aspects of their social behavior not confounded by activity (vocalizations) were similar. ConclusionsOur results showed high intra-laboratory replicability of results, even for those with effect sizes that were not particularly large, suggesting that discrepancies in the literature may be dependent on subtle differences in testing conditions, housing enrichment, or background strains and not so much on the variability of the behavioral phenotypes. The overall informatics analysis suggests two main classes of model systems that in some aspects lie on opposite ends of the behavioral spectrum, supporting the view that autism is not a unitary concept.