Varholick Justin A, Bailoo Jeremy D, Jenkins Ashley, Voelkl Bernhard, Würbel Hanno
Department of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Division of Animal Welfare, Veterinary Public Health Institute, Universität Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Front Behav Neurosci. 2021 Jan 20;14:624036. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2020.624036. eCollection 2020.
Social dominance status (e.g., dominant or subordinate) is often associated with individual differences in behavior and physiology but is largely neglected in experimental designs and statistical analysis plans in biomedical animal research. In fact, the extent to which social dominance status affects common experimental outcomes is virtually unknown. Given the pervasive use of laboratory mice and culminating evidence of issues with reproducibility, understanding the role of social dominance status on common behavioral measures used in research may be of paramount importance. To determine whether social dominance status-one facet of the social environment-contributes in a systematic way to standard measures of behavior in biomedical science, we conducted a systematic review of the existing literature searching the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Experiments were divided into several domains of behavior: exploration, anxiety, learned helplessness, cognition, social, and sensory behavior. Meta-analyses between experiments were conducted for the open field, elevated plus-maze, and Porsolt forced swim test. Of the 696 publications identified, a total of 55 experiments from 20 published studies met our pre-specified criteria. Study characteristics and reported results were highly heterogeneous across studies. A systematic review and meta-analyses, where possible, with these studies revealed little evidence for systematic phenotypic differences between dominant and subordinate male mice. This finding contradicts the notion that social dominance status impacts behavior in significant ways, although the lack of an observed relationship may be attributable to study heterogeneity concerning strain, group-size, age, housing and husbandry conditions, and dominance assessment method. Therefore, further research considering these secondary sources of variation may be necessary to determine if social dominance generally impacts treatment effects in substantive ways.
社会优势地位(例如,主导或从属)通常与行为和生理上的个体差异相关,但在生物医学动物研究的实验设计和统计分析计划中却 largely 被忽视。事实上,社会优势地位对常见实验结果的影响程度几乎 unknown。鉴于实验室小鼠的广泛使用以及可重复性问题的最终证据,了解社会优势地位在研究中常用行为测量指标上的作用可能至关重要。为了确定社会优势地位——社会环境的一个方面——是否以系统的方式对生物医学科学中行为的标准测量指标产生影响,我们对现有文献进行了系统综述,检索了 PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库。实验被分为几个行为领域:探索、焦虑、习得性无助、认知、社交和感觉行为。对旷场实验、高架十字迷宫实验和波索尔特强迫游泳实验进行了实验间的荟萃分析。在识别出的 696 篇出版物中,来自 20 项已发表研究的总共 55 项实验符合我们预先设定的标准。研究特征和报告结果在各项研究中高度 heterogeneous。对这些研究进行的系统综述和荟萃分析(在可能的情况下)显示,几乎没有证据表明优势和从属雄性小鼠之间存在系统的表型差异。这一发现与社会优势地位以显著方式影响行为的观点相矛盾,尽管未观察到这种关系可能归因于关于品系、组大小、年龄、饲养和管理条件以及优势评估方法的研究异质性。因此,可能需要进一步考虑这些次要变异来源的研究,以确定社会优势地位是否通常以实质性方式影响治疗效果。