Source Paper
Liliana B. Menalled, Andrea E. Kudwa, Sam Miller, Jon Fitzpatrick, Judy Watson-Johnson et al.
PLoS ONE • 2012
Huntington's disease (HD) is an autosomal dominant neurodegenerative disorder characterized by motor, cognitive and psychiatric manifestations. Since the mutation responsible for the disease was identified as an unstable expansion of CAG repeats in the gene encoding the huntingtin protein in 1993, numerous mouse models of HD have been generated to study disease pathogenesis and evaluate potential therapeutic approaches. Of these, knock-in models best mimic the human condition from a genetic perspective since they express the mutation in the appropriate genetic and protein context. Behaviorally, however, while some abnormal phenotypes have been detected in knock-in mouse models, a model with an earlier and more robust phenotype than the existing models is required. We describe here for the first time a new mouse line, the zQ175 knock-in mouse, derived from a spontaneous expansion of the CAG copy number in our CAG 140 knock-in colony [1]. Given the inverse relationship typically observed between age of HD onset and length of CAG repeat, since this new mouse line carries a significantly higher CAG repeat length it was expected to be more significantly impaired than the parent line. Using a battery of behavioral tests we evaluated both heterozygous and homozygous zQ175 mice. Homozygous mice showed motor and grip strength abnormalities with an early onset (8 and 4 weeks of age, respectively), which were followed by deficits in rotarod and climbing activity at 30 weeks of age and by cognitive deficits at around 1 year of age. Of particular interest for translational work, we also found clear behavioral deficits in heterozygous mice from around 4.5 months of age, especially in the dark phase of the diurnal cycle. Decreased body weight was observed in both heterozygotes and homozygotes, along with significantly reduced survival in the homozygotes. In addition, we detected an early and significant decrease of striatal gene markers from 12 weeks of age. These data suggest that the zQ175 knock-in line could be a suitable model for the evaluation of therapeutic approaches and early events in the pathogenesis of HD.
Objective: Comprehensive automated behavioral phenotyping assessment of zQ175 Huntington's disease model mice at specific developmental timepoints using the PhenoCube system
This is a PhenoCube Assessment protocol using mouse as the model organism. The procedure involves 8 procedural steps, 2 equipment items, 1 materials. Extracted from a 2012 paper published in PLoS ONE.
Model and subjects
mouse • C57BL/6J background with zQ175 CAG repeat expansion • both male and female • 4-58 weeks (multiple timepoints) • Primary cohort: 9-12 per sex per genotype; Secondary cohorts: 7-16 per sex per genotype
Study window
~37 week study window
Core workflow
Animal identification and genotyping • RFID chip implantation • Genotyping and CAG repeat determination
Primary readouts
Key equipment and reagents
Verified items
0
Direct vendor links
0
Use this page as an execution guide, then fall back to the source paper whenever you need exact exclusions, dosing details, or assay-specific caveats.
Confirm first
Use the page like this
Start here. The step list is optimized for running the experiment, with direct vendor links available inline when you need to source a cited item.
Mice were ear notched at 10-15 days of age for identification purposes
“Animals were ear notched at around 10–15 days”
Mice were implanted with RFID electronic chips for tracking purposes
“Mice were weaned and implanted with RFID electronic chips (DataMars, OH) for identification at around 21 days”
PCR analysis of tail snips was performed to determine genotype and CAG repeat count
“Genotyping and CAG repeat count were determined by Laragen Inc. (Culver City, CA), from PCR of tail snips taken at 10–15 days of age”
Secondary cohort (7-16 animals per sex per genotype) underwent PhenoCube testing at unspecified age
“two secondary groups of animals (each: 7–16/sex/genotype) evaluated in the PhenoCube and swim tank”
Secondary cohort (7-16 animals per sex per genotype) underwent PhenoCube testing at 37 weeks of age
“the 41 week collection was taken from animals evaluated in the PhenoCube at 37 weeks (see cohort 3 in Table 1)”
Tissue collected from behaviorally naive satellite groups
“Tissue was collected at three timepoints, at 12, 18 and 41 weeks of age, with an n=5–12 per group. Tissue from the 12 and 18 week timepoints was collected from behaviorally naïve satellite groups”
Tissue collected from behaviorally naive satellite groups
“Tissue was collected at three timepoints, at 12, 18 and 41 weeks of age, with an n=5–12 per group. Tissue from the 12 and 18 week timepoints was collected from behaviorally naïve satellite groups”
Tissue collected from animals previously evaluated in PhenoCube at 37 weeks
“the 41 week collection was taken from animals evaluated in the PhenoCube at 37 weeks”
This section explains what the experiment is doing, which readouts matter, what the data artifacts usually look like, and how the analysis should flow from raw capture to reported result.
Comprehensive automated behavioral phenotyping assessment of zQ175 Huntington's disease model mice at specific developmental timepoints using the PhenoCube system
Objective
Comprehensive automated behavioral phenotyping assessment of zQ175 Huntington's disease model mice at specific developmental timepoints using the PhenoCube system
Subjects
From papermouse • C57BL/6J background with zQ175 CAG repeat expansion • both male and female • 4-58 weeks (multiple timepoints)
Sample count
From paperPrimary cohort: 9-12 per sex per genotype; Secondary cohorts: 7-16 per sex per genotype
Cohort notes
From paperHomozygous animals averaged 188.7±12 CAG repeats (SEM=1.0); Heterozygous animals averaged 186.2±15 CAG repeats (SEM=1.4).
Animal identification and genotyping
RFID chip implantation
Genotyping and CAG repeat determination
PhenoCube behavioral assessment - Cohort 2
Spontaneous behavioral phenotypes measured by PhenoCube automated system
From paperNot explicitly described in the provided methods text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Performance in procedural 2-choice swim tank test
From paperNot explicitly described in the provided methods text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Tissue samples for molecular analysis at three developmental timepoints
From paperNot explicitly described in the provided methods text
Artifact type
Endpoint measurements summarized by group or timepoint
Comparison focus
Compare endpoint magnitude between groups, timepoints, or both
Spontaneous behavioral phenotypes measured by PhenoCube automated system
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Performance in procedural 2-choice swim tank test
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Tissue samples for molecular analysis at three developmental timepoints
From paperRaw artifact
Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
Processed artifact
Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
Final reported form
Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
Preprocessing / cleaning
Not explicitly described in the provided methods text
Scoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Spontaneous behavioral phenotypes measured by PhenoCube automated system; Performance in procedural 2-choice swim tank test; Tissue samples for molecular analysis at three developmental timepoints.
Statistical comparison
Statistical method not yet structured for this page.
Reporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Spontaneous behavioral phenotypes measured by PhenoCube automated system, Performance in procedural 2-choice swim tank test, Tissue samples for molecular analysis at three developmental timepoints.
Source links and direct wording from the methods section for validation and deeper review.
Citation
Liliana B. Menalled et al. (2012). Comprehensive Behavioral and Molecular Characterization of a New Knock-In Mouse Model of Huntington’s Disease: zQ175. PLoS ONE
Animal identification and genotyping • Protocol step
“Animals were ear notched at around 10–15 days”
RFID chip implantation • Protocol step
“Mice were weaned and implanted with RFID electronic chips (DataMars, OH) for identification at around 21 days”
Genotyping and CAG repeat determination • Protocol step
“Genotyping and CAG repeat count were determined by Laragen Inc. (Culver City, CA), from PCR of tail snips taken at 10–15 days of age”
PhenoCube behavioral assessment - Cohort 2 • Protocol step
“two secondary groups of animals (each: 7–16/sex/genotype) evaluated in the PhenoCube and swim tank”
Direct vendor pages are linked from the protocol above. This section stays focused on the full comparison view and the prep checklist.
Gather these items before starting the experiment. Check off items as you prepare.
Not explicitly stated in text
Not explicitly stated in text
DataMars
Use this section as the page quality checkpoint. It keeps section navigation, evidence access, readiness, and verification meaning in one place.
Current status surfaces were computed from experiment data updated Feb 28, 2026.
Source access
Jump back into the original paper or the methods evidence section when you need exact wording, exclusions, or method-specific caveats.
This protocol has structured steps plus evidence quotes, and is ready for canonical sync.
Steps
8
Evidence Quotes
7
Protocol Items
3
Linked Products
0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this means
The completeness score reflects how much structured protocol data is present: steps, methods evidence, listed materials, linked products, and paper provenance.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
Canonical Sync shows whether a ConductGraph-backed protocol is available for this experiment route right now. It is a sync-status signal, not a claim that every downstream vendor link or step detail is perfect.
Steps
8
Evidence
7
Specific Products
0/0
Canonical Sync
Pending
What this score means
The verification score reflects evidence coverage, subject detail, paper provenance, step depth, and whether linked products resolve to specific item pages instead of generic searches.
Computed from the current experiment record updated Feb 28, 2026.
A page can have structured steps and still need review when evidence is thin, product links are generic, or canonical protocol coverage is still pending.
What still needs work