Search

Many physiological and molecular processes are strongly rhythmic and profoundly influenced by sleep. The continuing effort of biological, medical, and veterinary science to understand the temporal organization of cellular, physiological, behavioral and cognitive function holds great promise for the improvement of the welfare of animals and human beings. As a result, attending veterinarians and IACUC are often charged with the responsibility of evaluating experiments on such rhythms or the effects of sleep (or its deprivation) in vertebrate animals. To produce interpretable data, animals used in such research must often be maintained in carefully controlled (often constant) conditions with minimal disruption. The lighting environment must be strictly controlled, frequent changes of cages and bedding are undesirable, and daily visual checks are often not possible. Thus deviations from the standard housing procedures specified in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals are often necessary. This report reviews requirements for experiments on biological rhythms and sleep and discusses how scientific considerations can be reconciled with the recommendations of the Guide.

Our goal in this study was to identify objective criteria that could be used to predict an outcome of death in mice subjected to experimental inoculation with infectious organisms. We conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected from 4 independent studies that used several infectious agents (influenza virus strains A/HK/x31[H3N2] and A/Puerto Rico/8/34[H1N1], Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Candida albicans) and mouse strains (A/J, DBA/2J, C57BL/6J, BALB/cByJ). Postinoculation periods ranged from 5 to 21 d, with survival of 30% to 60% of the subjects. In all studies, mice were implanted with either a subcutaneous identification microchip or an intraabdominal radiofrequency transmitter to allow remote measurement of body temperature. After inoculation, mice were weighed and monitored regularly until death occurred or euthanasia was performed. Hypothermia was the most valuable characteristic for distinguishing mice that would survive or succumb to the infection. In addition, weight loss was useful in some of the models. In some cases, the derived measure of the product of temperature and body weight provided the best differentiation of mice in the 2 outcome categories. Therefore, the utility of these measures varied substantially depending on the specific model. This study demonstrates that specific endpoint markers are not uniformly applicable to different models. Rather, such markers should be developed and tested in the context of the model in which they will be used. The use of validated markers for eventual death can signal the need for preemptive euthanasia to alleviate terminal distress and permit timely collection of biologic samples.

Efforts to refine the care and use of animals in research have been ongoing for many years and have led to general standardization of rodent models, particularly with regard to animal housing, genetics, and health status. Concurrently, numerous informal practices and recommendations have been promulgated with the laudable intent of promoting general animal wellbeing through so-called enrichment of the cage environment. However, the variety of housing conditions fostered by efforts at environmental enrichment (EE) complicates the goal of establishing standardized or even defined environments for laboratory rodents. Many studies over the years have sought to determine whether or how various enrichment strategies affect the behavior and physiology of laboratory rodents. The findings, conclusions, and interpretations of these studies are mixed, particularly with regard to their application across rodent species, strains, genders, and ages; whether or how they affect the animals and the science; and, in some cases, whether the effects are positive, negative, or neutral in terms of animal wellbeing. Crucial issues related to the application of EE in research settings include its poorly defined effect on the animals, the potential for increased variability in the data, poor definition across labs and in publications, and potential for animal or scientific harm. The complexities, uncertainties, interpretational conundrums, varying conclusions, and lack of consensus in the EE literature warrant careful assessment of the benefits and liabilities associated with implementing such interventions. Reliance on evidence, professional judgment, and performance standards are crucial in the development of EE strategies.

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.