# Better understanding of laboratory animal genetics will improve reproducibility

Guillaume Pavlovic, Sara Wells, Yann Hérault, Lydia Teboul

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Guillaume Pavlovic, Sara Wells, Yann Hérault, Lydia Teboul. Better understanding of laboratory animal genetics will improve reproducibility. PLoS Biology, 2025, 23 (10), pp.e3003464. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003464. hal-05458029

HAL Id: hal-05458029

https://univoak.hal.science/hal-05458029v1

Submitted on 14 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
PERSPECTIVE

# Better understanding of laboratory animal genetics will improve reproducibility

Guillaume Pavlovic<sup>1*</sup>, Sara Wells<sup>2,3</sup>, Yann Hérault<sup>1,4</sup>, Lydia Teboul<sup>2*</sup>

1 PHENOMIN-Institut Clinique de la Souris, CELPHEDIA, CNRS, INSERM, Université de Strasbourg, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France, 2 The Mary Lyon Centre at MRC Harwell, Harwell Campus, Didcot, United Kingdom, 3 Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom, 4 Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, INSERM, IGBMC UMR 7104-UMR-S 1258, Illkirch-Graffenstaden, France

* pavlovic@igbmc.fr (GP); l.teboul@har.mrc.ac.uk (LT)

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

> Inconsistent characterization and reporting of laboratory animal genetics undermine research quality and reproducibility. We need to recognize the value of genetic characterization, improve training for researchers, and implement rigorous reporting standards.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Pavlovic G, Wells S, Hérault Y, Teboul L (2025) Better understanding of laboratory animal genetics will improve reproducibility. PLoS Biol 23(10): e3003464. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003464

**Published:** October 30, 2025

**Copyright:** © 2025 Pavlovic et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Funding:** S.W. & L.T. were supported by UKRI/MRC funding through awards MC_UP_2201/1, MC_UP_2201/2 and MC_UP_2201/3. G.P. & Y.H were supported by ANR-10-IDEX-0002-02 and ANR-10-INBS-07 grants of National Research Agency. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Laboratory animals are widely used in biomedical research, yet the potential experimental biases resulting from genetic factors are often underestimated. These complexities can arise from various sources: insufficient genomic validation [1]; unexpected functions of genetic alterations [2]; mid- and long-range effects of modification on the genetic locus [3]; unexpected patterns of gene expression modulation [4]; and the influence of genetic background [5], all of which can introduce confounding variables into *in vivo* experiments. Despite these potential sources of bias, such factors are often overlooked in the usual animal model characterization practices reported in publications.

So, what is missing? We would argue that there needs to be a fundamental recognition of the value and importance of thoroughly characterizing experimental models from the outset. In reality, however, the emphasis tends to be on obtaining experimental results quickly to maintain competitiveness and affordability. In the context of *in vivo* studies, a thorough understanding of experimental models requires training in genetics, initial investment in characterization within the relevant experimental context and comprehensive documentation of both genomic and functional validation. To improve the quality and reproducibility of laboratory animal studies, these three crucial aspects of the research process need to be prioritized.

First, we need to improve the level of expertise in animal genetics among research teams. At present, the expertise required to interpret the impact of animal genetics on experimental outcomes may not be present in every research team, and emphasis on specific aspects, such as genetic background or allele sequence, can also
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

vary. Furthermore, laboratory animals are often just one of several experimental
components, rather than the primary focus of a study. This can result in heteroge-
nous validation and reporting of genetic backgrounds or of genetic alterations and
their functional consequences. While a high level of expertise in animal genetics is
not essential for all researchers who use laboratory animals, it is essential that all
researchers adhere to reporting guidelines and use the applicable support frame-
works available to them [6,7].

Second, we need more initial investment in model characterization within the rele-
vant experimental context. The generation or acquisition of laboratory animal models
often involves long timelines and the investment of significant resources. However,
the pressure to publish or meet project deadlines frequently leads researchers to rush
into acquisition of phenotypic experimental data without prior validation of the mod-
els, putting the entire investment at risk, as well as undermining both the reliability
of the science and the ethical justification for using animals in research. Even when
validation has been performed in other settings, the resulting information is rarely
faithfully communicated during the transfer of animals between facilities or projects.
This issue affects even widely used models [2,4]. Moreover, even well-characterized
models may require additional validation when introduced into new experimental
paradigms or environments [4]. Genomic verification of both the genetic background
and the modified allele is essential and, in the case of engineered alleles, so too is
the validation of the presumed functional outcome [2,4].

Third, extensive documentation of genomic and functional validation before,
during, and after experimentation needs to become the norm, rather than the excep-
tion. An internal analysis by the PHENOMIN-ICS institute compared published
descriptions of 27 recently reported animal models with their internal production
records and found minor inaccuracies in nine cases and, more concerningly, major
discrepancies in three models that may affect the reproducibility of the research. In
addition, the sequence of the mutated allele was not provided for 20 of the 27 models
(literature comparison to animal production data reviewed by GP/PHENOMIN-ICS).
Similar observations of erroneous or incomplete reporting have been made by other
animal facilities [8,9]. Strict compliance with established reporting guidelines would
help to resolve such issues [6,7], as it would promote structured data acquisition
throughout the experimental process, as well as ensuring comprehensive documen-
tation at the publication stage.

Although the primary responsibility for how research is performed and reported lies
with the authors, the reviewers and editors also have key roles in ensuring the quality
and transparency of scientific publications. However, in an environment of increas-
ingly multidisciplinary research, with increasingly varied and complex methods,
reviewers and editors often lack expertise in every aspect of a given study, including
the use and validation of laboratory animals. Despite this, they are still expected to
assess the adequacy of model documentation during the review process. To facilitate
this, we have participated in the creation of the LAG-R guidelines, which provide a
list of fields for accurate genetic documentation to support non-specialists in ani-
mal genetics or genetic engineering [7]. They also serve as an off-the-shelf solution
during the design and execution of experiments, listing the essential information to be reported in terms of genetic background, genetic alteration, and genetic validation. LAG-R belongs to a set of complementary guidelines including ARRIVE and PREPARE, which have checklists to support authors, reviewers, and editors in verifying that the description and validation of laboratory animals, as well as the related metadata, are reported in a thorough and appropriate fashion.

The issue of incomplete characterization of experimental models in science is not unique to laboratory animal research [7,10,11]. Standards of validation of experimental models and reporting guidelines remain to be adopted in many fields. One barrier to uptake lies with funding bodies, which often appear reluctant to allocate sufficient resources to validation work, as it is not perceived as innovative or cutting-edge science. A source of optimism is that the animal research community is being proactive in recognizing and addressing this issue [6,7,12]; however, these initiatives will have limited impact unless they are embraced across the entire scientific ecosystem — by funders, researchers, reviewers, and editors. Clarity regarding the description of animals in research and their intrinsic properties is the first step towards the responsible use of animals. It is now imperative that the broader scientific community recognizes the significance of the missing information and insufficient model validation, and takes collective action to fill that gap.

## References

1. Burgio G, Teboul L. Anticipating and identifying collateral damage in genome editing. Trends Genet. 2020;36(12):905-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2020.09.011 PMID: 33039248

2. Lee J-Y, Ristow M, Lin X, White MF, Magnuson MA, Hennighausen L. RIP-Cre revisited, evidence for impairments of pancreatic beta-cell function. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(5):2649-53. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M512373200 PMID: 16326700

3. West DB, Engelhard EK, Adkisson M, Nava AJ, Kirov JV, Cipollone A, et al. Transcriptome analysis of targeted mouse mutations reveals the topography of local changes in gene expression. PLoS Genet. 2016;12(2):e1005691. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005691 PMID: 26839965

4. Sasmita AO, Ong EC, Nazarenko T, Mao S, Komarek L, Thalmann M, et al. Parental origin of transgene modulates amyloid-β plaque burden in the 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neuron. 2025;113(6):838-846.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2024.12.025 PMID: 39837326

5. Sittig LJ, Carbonetto P, Engel KA, Krauss KS, Barrios-Camacho CM, Palmer AA. Genetic background limits generalizability of genotype-phenotype relationships. Neuron. 2016;91(6):1253-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.08.013 PMID: 27618673

6. Percie du Sert N, Hurst V, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, et al. The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7):e3000410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 PMID: 32663219

7. Teboul L, Amos-Landgraf J, Benavides FJ, Birling M-C, Brown SDM, Bryda E, et al. Improving laboratory animal genetic reporting: LAG-R guidelines. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):5574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-49439-y PMID: 38956430

8. Lloyd K, Franklin C, Lutz C, Magnuson T. Reproducibility: use mouse biobanks or lose them. Nature. 2015;522(7555):151-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/522151a PMID: 26062496

9. Dobrowolski P, Fischer M, Naumann R. Novel insights into the genetic background of genetically modified mice. Transgenic Res. 2018;27(3):265-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-018-0073-2 PMID: 29663254

10. Souren NY, Fusenig NE, Heck S, Dirks WG, Capes-Davis A, Bianchini F, et al. Cell line authentication: a necessity for reproducible biomedical research. EMBO J. 2022;41(14):e111307. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.2022111307 PMID: 35758134

11. Jensen KB, Little MH. Organoids are not organs: Sources of variation and misinformation in organoid biology. Stem Cell Reports. 2023;18:1255-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2023.05.009

12. Smith AJ, Clutton RE, Lilley E, Hansen KEA, Brattelid T. PREPARE: guidelines for planning animal research and testing. Lab Anim. 2018;52(2):135-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023677217724823 PMID: 28771074