Search

Animal research facilities are noisy environments. The high air change rates required in animal housing spaces tend to create higher noise levels from the heating and cooling systems. Housing rooms are typically constructed of hard wall material that is easily cleaned but simultaneously highly reverberant, meaning that the sound cannot be controlled/attenuated so the sounds that are generated bounce around the room uncontrolled. (Soft, sound-absorbing surfaces generally cannot be used in animal facilities because they collect microbes; various wall surface features and sound control panel options are available, although rarely used.) In addition, many of our husbandry tasks such as cage changing, animal health checks, cleaning, and transporting animals produce high levels of noise. Finally, much of the equipment we have increasingly employed in animal housing spaces, such as ventilated caging motors, biosafety, or procedure cabinets, can generate high levels of background noise, including ultrasound. These and many additional factors conspire to create an acoustic environment that is neither naturalistic nor conducive to a stress-free environment. The acoustic variability both within and between institutions can serve as an enormous confounder for research studies and a threat to our ability to reproduce studies over time and between research laboratories. By gaining a better appreciation for the acoustic variables, paired with transparency in reporting the levels, we might be able to gain a better understanding of their impacts and thereby gain some level of control over such acoustic variables in the animal housing space. The result of this could improve both animal welfare and study reproducibility, helping to address our 3Rs goals of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement in the animal biomedical research enterprise.

The nucleotide substitution C797T in the Chrm2 gene causes substitution of leucine for proline at position 266 (P266L) of the CHRM2 protein. Because Chrm2 codes for the type 2 muscarinic receptor, this mutation could influence physiologic and behavioral phenotypes of mice. Chrm2 mRNA was not differentially expressed in 2 brain regions with high cholinergic innervation in a mouse strain that does (BALB/cByJ) or does not (C57BL/6J) have the mutation. In addition, strains of mice with and without the C797T point mutation in Chrm2 did not differ significantly in muscarinic binding properties. Variation across strains was detected in terms of acoustic startle, prepulse inhibition, and the physiologic effects of the muscarinic agonist oxotremorine. However, interstrain differences in these measures did not correlate with the presence of the mutation. Although we were unable to associate a measurable phenotype with the Chrm2 mutation, assessment of the mutation on other genetic backgrounds or in the context of other traits might reveal differential effects. Therefore, despite our negative findings, evaluation of characteristics that involve muscarinic function should be undertaken with caution when comparing mice with different alleles of the Chrm2 gene.

Environmental noise can alter endocrine, reproductive and cardiovascular function, disturb sleep/wake cycles, and can mask normal communication between animals. These outcomes indicate that noise in the animal facility might have wide-ranging affects on animals, making what laboratory animals hear of consequence for all those who use animals in research, not just the hearing researcher. Given the wide-ranging effects of noise on laboratory animals, routine monitoring of noise in animal facilities would provide important information on the nature and stability of the animal environment. This special issue will highlight the need for more thorough monitoring and will serve as an introduction to noise and its various effects on animals.

Hearing in laboratory animals is a topic that traditionally has been the domain of the auditory researcher. However, hearing loss and exposure to various environmental sounds can lead to changes in multiple organ systems, making what laboratory animals hear of consequence for researchers beyond those solely interested in hearing. For example, several inbred mouse strains commonly used in biomedical research (e.g., C57BL/6, DBA/2, and BALB/c) experience a genetically determined, progressive hearing loss that can lead to secondary changes in systems ranging from brain neurochemistry to social behavior. Both researchers and laboratory animal facility personnel should be aware of both strain and species differences in hearing in order to minimize potentially confounding variables in their research and to aid in the interpretation of data. Independent of genetic differences, acoustic noise levels in laboratory animal facilities can have considerable effects on the inhabitants. A large body of literature describes the nonauditory impact of noise on the biology and behavior of various strains and species of laboratory animals. The broad systemic effects of noise exposure include changes in endocrine and cardiovascular function, sleep-wake cycle disturbances, seizure susceptibility, and an array of behavioral changes. These changes are determined partly by species and strain; partly by noise intensity level, duration, predictability, and other characteristics of the sound; and partly by animal history and exposure context. This article reviews some of the basic strain and species differences in hearing and outlines how the acoustic environment affects different mammals.