Search

Understanding how differences in animal husbandry practices affect the reproducibility of research results is critical. We sought to understand how different beddings might influence dietary obesity studies. We compared the effects of paper and corncob bedding on weight gain, metabolism, and gut microbiome (GM) of mice fed a high-fat diet (HFD) or a normal diet (ND) and evaluated effects on fecal and cecal microbiomes collected from these cohorts after euthanasia. Male C57BL/6J mice at 5 wk age were allowed to acclimate to the facility and the assigned bedding for one week before being placed on HFD or remaining on the ND for 12 wk. Fecal pellets and cecal samples were collected and frozen for batched 16S sequencing. Mice had similar body weight, visceral gonadal white adipose tissue (GWAT), subcutaneous inguinal white adipose tissue (IWAT), liver and spleen weights and metabolic changes regardless of the bedding type. Baseline microbiota differences were detected one week after bedding assignment. After 12 wk, the GM showed significant differences depending on both bedding and diet. The effects of the bedding were not significantly different between endpoint fecal and cecal GM, despite the inherent differences in microbiota in fecal and cecal samples. A correlation was detected between diet and the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes and Verrucomicrobia: Akkermansia. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the importance of considering bedding type when performing dietary experiments.

Studies of visual responses in isoflurane-anesthetized mice often use the sedative chlorprothixene to decrease the amount of isoflurane used because excessive isoflurane could adversely affect light-evoked responses. However, data are not available to justify the use of this nonpharmaceutical-grade chemical. The current study tested whether pharmaceutical-grade sedatives would be appropriate alternatives for imaging pupillary light reflexes. Male 15-wk-old mice were injected intraperitoneally with 1 mg/kg chlorprothixene, 5 mg/kg acepromazine, 10 mg/kg chlorpromazine, or saline. After anesthetic induction, anesthesia maintenance used 0.5% and 1% isoflurane for sedative- and saline-injected mice, respectively. A photostimulus (16.0 log photons cm–2 s–1; 470 nm) was presented to the right eye for 20 min, during which the left eye was imaged for consensual pupillary constriction and involuntary pupil drift. Time to immobilization, loss of righting reflex, physiologic parameters, gain of righting reflex, and degree of recovery were assessed also. The sedative groups were statistically indistinguishable for all measures. By contrast, pupillary drift occurred far more often in saline-treated mice than in the sedative groups. Furthermore, saline-treated mice took longer to reach maximal pupil constriction than all sedative groups and had lower heart rates compared with chlorpromazine- and chlorprothixene-sedated mice. Full recovery (as defined by purposeful movement, response to tactile stimuli, and full alertness) was not regularly achieved in any sedative group. In conclusion, at the doses tested, acepromazine and chlorpromazine are suitable pharmaceutical-grade alternatives to chlorprothixene for pupil imaging and conceivably other in vivo photoresponse measurements; however, given the lack of full recovery, lower dosages should be investigated further for use in survival procedures.

IVC systems are marketed for improving the health and management of mouse colonies. The current study compared mouse reproductive performance and husbandry and environmental parameters among 3 high-density (HD) IVC rack systems (RS1, RS2, and RS3), which were present in separate but comparable rooms. Three breeding trios each of Swiss Webster (CFW) and BALB/c mice were placed in each rack (n = 36 female, n = 18 male). Reproductive indices were measured for 3 breeding cycles over 2 generations; indices included time to parturition, litter size and pup weight, survivability, and interbirth interval. Over 18 wk, personnel used scoring systems to evaluate each RS daily to every other week according to cage dirtiness, need for spot changing, ease of cage changing, daily health checks, and cage wash processing. Macroenvironmental parameters (temperature, relative humidity, noise, total particulate matter) were measured weekly over 14 wks. Microenvironmental parameters (temperature, relative humidity, NH3, CO2, O2) of 2 cages each of male and female CFW mice (4 mice/cage) on each RS were measured at 6 time points over 2 wks. RS1 had significantly smaller mean litter sizes of CFW mice (mean ± 1 SD, 6.5 ± 2.9 pups) as compared with both RS2 (9.5 ± 1.7 pups) and RS3 (9.3 ± 3.8 pups). RS1 scored as being significantly easier to process through the cage wash. RS2 had significantly lower room noise levels (46.0 ± 5.0 dBA) but higher humidity (58.6% ± 8.9%) as compared with both RS1 (43.7% ± 9.9%) and RS3 (46.0% ± 12.0%) over the 2-wk cycle, particularly at 8 and 12 d after cage change. In conclusion, in terms of mouse reproductive performance and husbandry and environmental parameters, each system had at least 1 advantage over the other 2. Therefore, various factors should be considered when choosing an IVC system for mice.

Mouse handling during cage changing and health evaluation has traditionally been performed by using forceps. This method was adopted as a biosecurity measure but can adversely affect employee ergonomics and rodent behavior. In this study, we evaluated alternative methods of rodent handling and their potential implications for efficiency, biosecurity, and animal welfare. Study groups included plastic cups, gloved hands, 2 methods of tunnel handling, and forceps. Evaluations included speed of cage change, ATP-based assessment of sanitization, and retrospective analysis of colony health and breeding data. The time to change 14 cages was significantly faster at each time point for the gloved hands and forceps groups as compared with the other methods. Overall speed did not increase significantly with each subsequent study week for any group. ATP levels after sanitization with hydrogen peroxide–peracetic acid mixture differed significantly between gloves and forceps. When ATP level was evaluated on a per-cm2 basis, no significant difference between gloves and forceps was detected. Although tunnel and cup handling both increased the time for cage-changing, the tunnel served as both an indirect handling method and a shelter when left within the cage. Retrospective analysis revealed that breeding performance and colony health were similar among groups. Although efficiency is a concern for large-scale implementation of novel handling methods, the tunnel method may prove beneficial for sensitive strains or studies requiring indirect handling. In addition, using gloved hands to directly handle mice during cage changing is efficient and avoids the ergonomic strain associated with forceps. Precautions should be taken when handling mice with gloves, given that the increased contact area carries an increased load of organic debris. Changing gloves between rack sides or before proceeding to the animals belonging to a different investigator minimizes the potential for cross-contamination.

The Guide recommends sanitizing cage components, including microisolation cage tops (MCT), at a minimum of every 2 wk. Previously published data demonstrated that mouse MCT microbial loads do not increase until at least 2 wk and that sanitation can be delayed past 2 wk. How microbial loads differ on mouse compared with rat MCT, as well as across different ventilation systems, remains unclear. We hypothesized that MCT microbial loads would be higher in tops from rats compared with mice and would differ according to IVC ventilation system. We evaluated bacterial loads on MCT at serial time points to 90 d from static cages housing mice or rats and from rat and mouse cages on several ventilation systems (mice, 6; rats, 4). MCT were determined to have sufficiently elevated bacterial loads to necessitate changing based on either statistically significant changes in bacterial loads or values greater than 50 cfu. Across all ventilation systems, bacterial counts at 14 d were significantly higher on rat MCT compared with mouse MCT. Across the ventilation systems examined, rat MCT cfu remained similarly elevated from 14 d through 90 d. Mouse MCT total cfu were also stable across multiple ventilation systems yet remained lower than 50 cfu until at least 90 d. Patterns of bacterial species isolated from rat MCT were relatively consistent over time and ventilation system, whereas mice showed greater variability in both contexts. We found that 14 d is an appropriate sanitization time point for rat MCT, whereas the interval at which mouse MCT are cleaned can be extended to 90 d at least. Our data highlight interspecies differences in the accumulation of bacteria on MCT and that mouse MCT sanitation intervals for several housing systems can be extended beyond 14 d.

Research using laboratory animals has been revolutionized by the creation of humanized animal models, which are immunodeficient animals engrafted with human cells, tissues, or organs. These animal models provide the research community a unique and promising opportunity to mimic a wide variety of disease conditions in humans, from infectious disease to cancer. A vast majority of these models are humanized mice like those injected with human CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells and patient-derived xenografts. With this technology comes the need for the animal research enterprise to understand the inherent and potential risks, such as exposure to bloodborne pathogens, associated with the model development and research applications. Here, we review existing humanized animal models and provide recommendations for their safe use based on regulatory framework and literature. A risk assessment program—from handling the human material to its administration to animals and animal housing—is a necessary initial step in mitigating risks associated with the use of humanized animals in research. Ultimately, establishing institutional policies and guidelines to ensure personnel safety is a legal and ethical responsibility of the research institution as part of the occupational health and safety program and overall animal care and use program.