Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.
Impact of Refinements to Handling and Restraint Methods in Mice.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/ani12172173
复制
发表时间：
2022-08-24
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
对于实验室小鼠，用于常规饲养和程序的处理方法可能会导致应激，特别是如果使用尾部处理方法。我们首先试图调查当在受控的真实世界研究中进行测试时，不同处理方法是否有任何可测量的影响。在我们的饲养中心使用不同的方法处理动物，并由动物护理人员分析其对运输至研究中心后处理的影响。我们发现，处理方法对技术人员的分数有明显的影响，这些分数与压力的明显迹象以及处理的容易程度有关。根据这项研究，该机构实施了一项完善的老鼠处理政策。然而，使用非尾部处理方法的一个障碍是尾部处理对于小鼠的束缚是必要的。通过对传统约束方法进行相对较小的调整，我们已经能够将联合收割机拔罐与物理约束结合起来，以避免使用任何尾部。在这里，我们提供的数据表明，我们的改进的约束方法与减少的迹象厌恶的小鼠。总之，我们的研究结果支持实施细化的小鼠处理政策，这可以包括处理饲养和限制程序。越来越多的证据表明，与非厌恶性处理方法（即，隧道和杯状），尾部处理对小鼠福利具有负面影响。尽管有这些证据，仍然有研究机构继续使用尾部处理。在这里，我们通过三种不同的方法研究了常规饲养的处理：在涉及非现场饲养的小鼠的相关现实场景中的尾部、杯状和管。转移到目的地单元后，评估小鼠与焦虑和恐惧相关的明显行为。经历过尾巴处理的小鼠不太容易处理，对盒子打开的反应更灵敏，并且在手接近测试中得分更低。非尾部处理方法的一个障碍是目前在程序中通过尾部约束小鼠的做法。因此，我们接下来评估了一种改良的束缚方法，即在不使用尾巴的情况下将动物从拔罐变为束缚，是否与更好的福利相关。这种改良的约束方法减少了明显的痛苦迹象，尽管我们没有发现皮质酮水平或焦虑相关行为的任何差异。这些发现表明，在整个动物的实验室经验，包括在约束，避免尾巴处理，有利于他们的福利。
For laboratory mice, handling methods used for routine husbandry and procedures can cause stress, particularly if tail handling methods are used. We first sought to investigate if there were any measurable impacts of different handling methods when tested in a controlled real-world study. Animals were handled at our breeding site using different methods, and their impacts on handling post-transport to the research site were analysed by animal care staff. We found a clear effect of handling method on technician scores relating to overt signs of stress and how easy they were to handle. Based on this study, the institution implemented a refined mouse handling policy. However, one barrier to the use of non-tail handling methods has been arguments that tail handling is necessary for restraint in mice. With a relatively minor adaptation to the conventional restraint method, we have been able to combine cupping with physical restraint for procedures avoiding any use of the tail. Here we provide data showing that our modified restraint method is associated with reduced signs of aversion in the mice. Together, our findings support the implementation of refined handling policies for mice, and this can include handling for both husbandry and restraint for procedures. There is increasing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e., tunnel and cupping), tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Despite this evidence, there are still research organisations that continue to use tail handling. Here, we investigated handling for routine husbandry by three different methods: tail, cupping and tube in a relevant real-world scenario involving mice bred off-site. After transfer to the destination unit, mice were assessed for overt behaviours associated with anxiety and fear. Mice that experienced tail handling were less easy to handle, were more responsive to the box opening, and scored lower in a hand approach test. One barrier to non-tail handling methods is the current practice of restraining mice by the tail for procedures. We therefore next assessed whether a modified method for restraint that takes the animal from cupping to restraint without the use of the tail was associated with better welfare. This refined restraint method reduced overt signs of distress although we did not find any differences in corticosterone levels or anxiety-related behaviours. These findings suggest that avoiding tail handling throughout the animal’s laboratory experience, including during restraint, benefits their welfare.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
8.2
作者：
Parmigiani, S;Palanza, P;Ferrari, PF
通讯作者：
Ferrari, PF
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Spink, AJ;Tegelenbosch, RAJ;Noldus, LPJJ
通讯作者：
Noldus, LPJJ
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
HARBUZ, MS;JESSOP, DS;CHOWDREY, HS
通讯作者：
CHOWDREY, HS
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Spiga, F.;Harrison, L. R.;Lightman, S. L.
通讯作者：
Lightman, S. L.
影响因子：
4.6
作者：
Stuart, Sarah A.;Robinson, Emma S. J.
通讯作者：
Robinson, Emma S. J.