Lowe, Robert
Barton, Carl
Jenkins, Christopher A.
Ernst, Christina
Forman, Oliver
Fernandez-Twinn, Denise S.
Bock, Christoph
Rossiter, Stephen J.
Faulkes, Chris G.
Ozanne, Susan E.
Walter, Lutz
Odom, Duncan T.
Mellersh, Cathryn
Rakyan, Vardhman K.
Funding for this research was provided by:
Wellcome Trust (202878/Z/16/Z)
Medical Research Council (MRC_MC_UU_12012/4)
Article History
Received: 27 September 2017
Accepted: 19 January 2018
First Online: 16 February 2018
Ethics approval and consent to participate
: The reference number for macaque blood sampling approval is 33.9-425-05-10A102 given by LAVES (Lower Saxony State Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety). The Tc1 mouse line was housed in the Biological Resources Unit at the Cancer Research UK - Cambridge Institute under Home Office Licence PPL 70/7535. This study did not require ethics committee approval for dog analysis as DNA was collected using buccal swabs, which is a non-invasive, non-regulated procedure. No live animals were involved in the research, nor were any in vivo experiments undertaken. All samples were obtained from privately owned pet dogs with the owners’ written consent. The majority of DNA samples were obtained using non-invasive buccal/cheek swabs. Where DNA was obtained from blood, these samples were residual aliquots of blood drawn by veterinarians, under the Veterinary Procedures Act, for routine and/or diagnostic veterinary purposes, and not specifically for the purposes of research. NMRs were maintained at Queen Mary University of London in the Biological Services Unit, and tissues obtained from postmortem specimens in compliance with national (Home Office) and institutional procedures and guidelines. Because sample collection was from postmortem material, additional local ethical approval was not required for this study.
: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.