Table 1. Genotype analyses of the F1 generation offspring of four chosen F0 individuals crossed with wild type rats.
| Wild type crossings of founders | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Line II.) | (Line I.) | (Line III.) | (Line IV.) | |||||
| Parents | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ |
| F0/20 | WT | F0/26 | WT | F0/34 | WT | F0/49 | WT | |
| Average copy | 1.0 | – | 1.0 | – | 0.4 | – | 0.9 | – |
| F1 | Progeny | Copy | Progeny | Copy | Progeny | Copy | Progeny | Copy |
| F1/36 | 0 | F1/68 | 1 | F1/51 | 0 | F1/17 | 1 | |
| F1/37 | 1 | F1/69 | 0 | F1/52 | 0 | F1/18 | 0 | |
| F1/38 | 1 | F1/70 | 1 | F1/53 | 1 | F1/19 | 0 | |
| F1/39 | 0 | F1/71 | 1 | F1/54 | 0 | F1/20 | 0 | |
| F1/40 | 0 | F1/72 | 0 | F1/55 | 1 | F1/21 | 1 | |
| F1/41 | 0 | F1/73 | 0 | F1/56 | 0 | F1/22 | 0 | |
| F1/42 | 0 | F1/74 | 1 | F1/57 | 0 | F1/23 | 0 | |
| F1/43 | 2 | F1/75 | 1 | F1/58 | 1 | F1/24 | 1 | |
| F1/44 | 1 | F1/76 | 0 | F1/59 | 0 | F1/25 | 1 | |
| F1/45 | 0 | F1/77 | 1 | F1/60 | 0 | F1/26 | 1 | |
| F1/46 | 0 | F1/78 | 1 | F1/61 | 1 | F1/27 | 0 | |
| F1/47 | 0 | F1/79 | 0 | F1/62 | 0 | F1/28 | 1 | |
| F1/48 | 0 | F1/80 | 0 | F1/63 | 1 | F1/29 | 0 | |
| F1/49 | 0 | F1/81 | 1 | F1/64 | 0 | F1/30 | 0 | |
| F1/50 | 1 | F1/82 | 0 | F1/65 | 0 | F1/31 | 0 | |
| F1/83 | 1 | F1/66 | 0 | F1/32 | 1 | |||
| F1/84 | 0 | F1/67 | 1 | F1/33 | 1 | |||
| F1/85 | 0 | F1/34 | 0 | |||||
| F1/35 | 1 | |||||||
Based on further genetic and phenotypic characterizations, ‘Line I.’ rat line was used to establish the homozygous rat strain with one copy CAG-GCaMP2 transgene per haploid genome. Of note that although the F0/34 founder of ‘Line III.’ was a genetic mosaic (average copy number below 1), it stably inherited one transgene copy in its germline (see F1 animals).