Search

There is a "village" of people impacting research reproducibility, such as funding panels, the IACUC and its support staff, institutional leaders, investigators, veterinarians, animal facilities, and professional journals. IACUCs can contribute to research reproducibility by ensuring that reviews of animal use requests, program self-assessments and post-approval monitoring programs are sufficiently thorough, the animal model is appropriate for testing the hypothesis, animal care and use is conducted in a manner that is compliant with external and institutional requirements, and extraneous variables are minimized. The persons comprising the village also must have a shared vision that guards against reproducibility problems while simultaneously avoids being viewed as a burden to research. This review analyzes and discusses aspects of the IACUC's "must do" and "can do" activities that impact the ability of a study to be reproduced. We believe that the IACUC, with support from and when working synergistically with other entities in the village, can contribute to minimizing unintended research variables and strengthen research reproducibility.

Nearly half of all external grants from the US National Institutes of Health require approval by the recipient organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before the funds can be used for research with animals. Given that large sums of money are spent annually on research involving animals, studies evaluating the strengths, weaknesses and overall effectiveness of IACUCs and similar animal welfare committees are needed. The authors designed and carried out a self-assessment survey on IACUC function and effectiveness. They found that 98% of all respondents believed that their IACUCs advanced animal welfare, but in many instances, veterinarians' responses to individual survey items were significantly different from those of other IACUC members. Protocol compliance, protocol review training and better understanding among non-committee members of the need for regulatory oversight are some areas where improvements could be made. Less than 50% of respondents stated that literature searches to find alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures were helpful.

The type and location of fire alarms are important considerations in animal facility design. The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals recommends minimizing animal exposure to such alarms. Nevertheless, it is often necessary to maintain fire alarms within animal housing or procedural areas. The authors exposed male mice to the flashing strobe light component of a standard fire alarm and evaluated mouse fecal corticosterone concentration, which is known to be an indicator of stress. Mice were exposed to the strobe light for 5 min during either the light or the dark phase of the light:dark cycle. The authors collected fecal samples every 6 h for 24 h before exposing mice to the alarm and every 6 h for 24 h after exposure. Fecal samples taken before exposure (baseline samples) showed a normal circadian pattern of corticosterone metabolite excretion. In fecal samples taken after mice were exposed to the fire alarm, metabolite concentrations did not significantly differ from baseline concentrations over time.

The value of a static mouse cage is partially determined by the cage's ability to dissipate carbon dioxide and ammonia. The authors compared the concentrations of ammonia and carbon dioxide produced by mice housed in two types of static isolator cages: a newly introduced disposable cage and a conventional reusable cage. Female mice were housed in three disposable and three reusable cages (n = 5 per cage). After 7 d, groups that were housed in disposable cages were rehoused in fresh reusable cages and vice versa. Intracage carbon dioxide, ammonia, temperature and relative humidity were measured daily. Overall, there were no significant differences in carbon dioxide or ammonia concentrations between the cage types. Within 30 min of placing mice in cages, carbon dioxide concentrations rose to more than 10,000 ppm in both cage types and rarely dropped below 8,000 ppm during both phases of the study. Ammonia concentrations rose slowly until day 4 and then began to rise rapidly. The maximum average ammonia concentration was 710 ppm. There was a highly significant relationship between increasing levels of humidity and ammonia production in the disposable cages (r = 0.88). For the reusable cages, the correlation was not as strong (r = 0.68). Both cage types were similar in their ability to dissipate carbon dioxide and ammonia. The suggested frequency of cage changing can only be estimated; on the basis of existing literature, it seems prudent to change cages when the ammonia concentration reaches 50 ppm.