Effects of Refined Handling on Reproductive Indices of BALB/cJ and CD-1 IGS Mice.

Current mouse handling methods during cage change procedures can cause stress and potentially compromise animal welfare. Our previous study of breeding C57BL/6J mice found modest increases in pup production and a significant reduction in preweaning litter losses when mice were handled using a tunnel as compared with a tail-lift with padded forceps. The current study evaluated how these 2 handling methods affected reproduction by 2 additional mouse strains, BALB/cJ (a low- to intermediate-fecundity strain) and CD-1 IGS (a high-fecundity stock). We predicted that refined handling would have minimal effects on the high-fecundity line with a satisfactory production rate and greater effects on the low-fecundity line. Handling method (tunnel compared with tail-lift) was randomly assigned to monogamous breeding pairs of mice. Reproductive metrics (litter size at birth and weaning, numbers of litters, litter attrition, between-litter intervals, pup wean- ing weight, and sex ratio) were prospectively monitored for 80 BALB/cJ and 77 CD-1 pairs that were bred continuously for 6 mo. Both strains of mice were highly productive, exceeding previously published breeding data. However, neither strain demonstrated operational or statistically significant differences between handling methods for any reproduction metric. As we detected no negative effects in these 2 strains and the benefits are clear in other strains, refined handling should be considered for all breeding mice.

Effects of non-aversive versus tail-lift handling on breeding productivity in a C57BL/6J mouse colony.

Non-aversive handling is a well-documented refinement measure for improving rodent welfare. Because maternal stress is related to reduced productivity, we hypothesized that welfare benefits associated with non-aversive handling would translate to higher production and fewer litters lost in a laboratory mouse breeding colony. We performed a randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of a standard method of handling (tail-lift with forceps) versus non-aversive handling with transfer tunnels ('tunnel-handled') on breeding performance in 59 C57BL/6J mouse pairs. Intervention assignments could not be concealed from technicians, but were concealed from assessors and data analyst. An operationally significant effect of tunnel-handling (large enough differences to warrant programmatic change) was defined before study initiation as a 5% increase in productivity, or one extra pup over the reproductive lifetime of each pair. Pairs were randomly allocated to handling intervention and cage rack location, and monitored over an entire 6-month breeding cycle. For each group, we measured number of pups born and weaned, and number of entire litters lost prior to weaning. Differences between transfer methods were estimated by two-level hierarchical mixed models adjusted for parental effects and parity. Compared to tail-lift mice, tunnel-handled mice averaged one extra pup per pair born (+1.0; 95% CI 0.9, 1.1; P = 0.41) and weaned (+1.1, 95% CI 0.9, 1.2; P = 0.33). More tunnel-handled pairs successfully weaned all litters produced (13/29 pairs, 45% vs 4/30 pairs, 13%; P = 0.015), averaged fewer litter losses prior to weaning (11/29 pairs [38%] vs 26/30 pairs [87%]; P <0.001), and had a 20% lower risk of recurrent litter loss. The increase in numbers of pups produced and weaned with tunnel handling met threshold requirement for operational significance. These data and projected cost savings persuaded management to incorporate tunnel handling as standard of care across the institution. These data also suggest that overlooked husbandry practices such as cage transfer may be major confounders in studies of mouse models.

Randomized trial comparing 2 fiber regimens for the reduction of symptoms of constipation.

OBJECTIVE: : This study aimed to compare the effects of a special bowel recipe with psyllium on symptoms of constipation. METHODS: : Women with symptoms of constipation were randomized to 6 weeks of either psyllium or a special bowel recipe. Patients completed a constipation scoring questionnaire and recorded characteristics of each bowel movement. RESULTS: : A total of 53 participants completed prestudy and poststudy constipation scoring questionnaires. Both groups demonstrated improvement in constipation scores (psyllium: 13.9 ± 4.7 to 9.0 ± 4.6, P < 0.001; recipe: 13.6 ± 4.1 to 8.5 ± 5.0, P < 0.001). Mean differences in pretreatment and posttreatment constipation scores were not statistically different between the 2 groups.Subjects taking the bowel recipe strained only 20% of the time compared with those using psyllium who strained 57% of the time (P = 0.007). Other symptoms improved from baseline, but the majority was not different between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: : The bowel recipe demonstrated no significant difference in efficacy to pure fiber.