Welfare Assessment, End-Point Refinement and the Effects of Non-Aversive Handling in C57BL/6 Mice with Lewis Lung Cancer.

Cancer-bearing mice are at risk of developing anxiety, pain, or malaise. These conditions may not only harm welfare but could also undermine data quality and translational validity in studies to develop therapeutic interventions. We aimed to establish whether, or at what point mice developing lung cancer show these symptoms, what measures can best detect their onset, and if data quality and animal welfare can be enhanced by using non-aversive handling (NAH). Welfare was monitored using various daily methods. At the beginning and end of the study, we also scored behaviour for general welfare evaluation, recorded nociceptive thresholds, and applied the mouse grimace scale (MGS). Cancer caused a decline in daily welfare parameters (body weight, and food and water consumption) beginning at around 4 days prior to euthanasia. As cancer progressed, rearing and walking declined to a greater extent in cancer-bearing versus control mice, while grooming, inactive periods, and MGS scores increased. A decline in nest building capability and food consumption provided a particularly effective means of detecting deteriorating welfare. These changes suggested a welfare problem arose as cancer developed, so similar studies would benefit from refinement, with mice being removed from the study at least 4 days earlier. However, the problem of highly varied tumour growth made it difficult to determine this time-point accurately. There were no detectable beneficial effects of NAH on either data quality or in terms of enhanced welfare.

Benefits of tunnel handling persist after repeated restraint, injection and anaesthesia.

Millions of mice are used every year for scientific research, representing the majority of scientific procedures conducted on animals. The standard method used to pick up laboratory mice for general husbandry and experimental procedures is known as tail handling and involves the capture, elevation and restraint of mice via their tails. There is growing evidence that, compared to non-aversive handling methods (i.e. tunnel and cup), tail handling increases behavioural signs of anxiety and induces anhedonia. Hence tail handling has a negative impact on mouse welfare. Here, we investigated whether repeated scruff restraint, intraperitoneal (IP) injections and anaesthesia negated the reduction in anxiety-related behaviour in tunnel compared with tail handled BALB/c mice. We found that mice which experienced repeated restraint spent less time interacting with a handler compared to mice that were handled only. However, after repeated restraint, tunnel handled mice showed increased willingness to interact with a handler, and reduced anxiety in standard behavioural tests compared with tail handled mice. The type of procedure experienced (IP injection or anaesthesia), and the duration after which behaviour was measured after a procedure affected the willingness of mice to interact with a handler. Despite this, compared with tail handling, tunnel handling reduced anxiety in standard behavioural tests and increased willingness to interact with a handler within hours after procedures. This suggests that the welfare benefits of tunnel handling are widely applicable and not diminished by the use of other putatively more invasive procedures that are frequently used in the laboratory. Therefore, the simple refinement of replacing tail with tunnel handling for routine husbandry and procedures will deliver a substantial improvement for mouse welfare and has the potential for improving scientific outcomes.

Identifying obstacles preventing the uptake of tunnel handling methods for laboratory mice: An international thematic survey.

Handling of laboratory mice is essential for experiments and husbandry, but handling can increase anxiety in mice, compromising their welfare and potentially reducing replicability between studies. The use of non-aversive handling (e.g., tunnel handling or cupping), rather than the standard method of picking mice up by the tail, has been shown to enhance interaction with a handler, reduce anxiety-like behaviours, and increase exploration and performance in standard behavioural tests. Despite this, some labs continue to use tail handling for routine husbandry, and the extent to which non-aversive methods are being used is currently unknown. Here we conducted an international online survey targeting individuals that work with and/or conduct research using laboratory mice. The survey aimed to identify the handling methods currently being used, and to determine common obstacles that may be preventing the wider uptake of non-aversive handling. We also surveyed opinions concerning the current data in support of non-aversive handling for mouse welfare and scientific outcomes. 390 complete responses were received and analysed quantitatively and thematically. We found that 35% report using tail handling only, and 43% use a combination of tail and non-aversive methods. 18% of respondents reported exclusively using non-aversive methods. The vast majority of participants were convinced that non-aversive handling improves animal welfare and scientific outcomes. However, the survey indicated that researchers were significantly less likely to have heard of non-aversive handling and more likely to use tail handling compared with animal care staff. Thematic analysis revealed there were concerns regarding the time required for non-aversive methods compared with tail handling, and that there was a perceived incompatibility of tunnel handling with restraint, health checks and other routine procedures. Respondents also highlighted a need for additional research into the impact of handling method that is representative of experimental protocols and physiological indicators used in the biomedical fields. This survey highlights where targeted research, outreach, training and funding may have the greatest impact on increasing uptake of non-aversive handling methods for laboratory mice.

Welfare and Scientific Considerations of Tattooing and Ear Tagging for Mouse Identification.

Ear tagging is perceived as less painful or stressful than tattooing and therefore is generally considered less harmful or costly to welfare. However, ear tags are more difficult to read than tattoos and can fall out, and mice usually require restraint for the tag numbers to be read accurately. We assessed the welfare and scientific implications of tattooing by using a commercial device compared with restraint in a device versus ear tagging. Male and female BALB/c mice (n = 32) underwent procedures after 1 wk of tail or nonaversive (tunnel) handling to determine whether tunnel handling reduced anxiety. Pain was evaluated using both the Mouse Grimace Scale (MGS) and manual and automated behavior analyses; light-dark preference testing and voluntary interaction with the handler's hand were used to assess anxiety. Tail inflammation after tattooing was quantified using bioluminescent imaging, and ear tag and tattoo misidentification rates were estimated from volunteer staff records. Tunnel handling reduced anxiety compared with tail handling. According to the MGS, tattooing was not more painful than ear tagging but caused significant tail inflammation and more agitation and anxiety. However, all tattoos were read correctly without handling, whereas all ear tagged mice needed restraint, and at least 25% of the tag codes were misread. Handling stress together with identification errors at this rate represent potentially serious concerns regarding the scientific integrity of data from studies using ear tagging. These concerns are unlikely to arise with tattooing. Although tattooing was stressful, so were restraint and ear tagging. However, considering the other major advantages of tattooing, the total costs associated with tattooing were not substantially greater than for ear tagging.

Comparative effects of vasectomy surgery and buprenorphine treatment on faecal corticosterone concentrations and behaviour assessed by manual and automated analysis methods in C57 and C3H mice.

Establishing effective cage-side pain assessment methods is essential if post-surgical pain is to be controlled effectively in laboratory animals. Changes to overall activity levels are the most common methods of assessment, but may not be the most appropriate for establishing the analgesic properties of drugs, especially in mice, due their high activity levels. Use of drugs that can affect activity (e.g. opioids) is also a problem. The relative merits of both manual and automated behaviour data collection methods was determined in two inbred mouse strains undergoing vasectomy following treatment with one of 2 buprenorphine dose rates. Body weights and the effects of surgery and buprenorphine on faecal corticosterone were also measured. Surgery caused abnormal behaviour and reduced activity levels, but high dose buprenorphine caused such large-scale increases in activity in controls that we could not establish analgesic effects in surgery groups. Only pain-specific behaviour scoring using the manual approach was effective in showing 0.05 mg/kg buprenorphine alleviated post-vasectomy pain. The C57 mice also responded better to buprenorphine than C3H mice, indicating they were either less painful, or more responsive to its analgesic effects. C3H mice were more susceptible to the confounding effects of buprenorphine irrespective of whether data were collected manually or via the automated approach. Faecal corticosterone levels, although variable, were higher in untreated surgery mice than in control groups, also indicating the presence of pain or distress. Pain-specific scoring was superior to activity monitoring for assessing the analgesic properties of buprenorphine in vasectomised mice. Buprenorphine (0.01 mg/kg), in these strains of male mice, for this procedure, provided inadequate analgesia and although 0.05 mg/kg was more effective, not completely so. The findings support the recommendation that analgesic dose rates should be adjusted in relation to the potential severity of the surgical procedure, the mouse strain, and the individual animals' response.

A comparison of abdominal and scrotal approach methods of vasectomy and the influence of analgesic treatment in laboratory mice.

Vasectomized mice are needed in the production of genetically-modified animals. The BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement recommended that vasectomy should be performed via an incision in the scrotal sac, rather than via laparotomy, arguing that the former could be less painful due to minimal tissue trauma. This study was undertaken to assess the validity of this recommendation. Mice underwent vasectomy via either abdominal or scrotal approach surgery. Mice were filmed for 15 min presurgery and at one, 24 and 48 h postsurgery. Data were obtained using automated behaviour recognition software (HomeCageScan). Meloxicam was administered either alone or combined with acetaminophen prior to surgery. A third group received only saline subcutaneously. Postsurgery behaviour changes were compared between groups at each time point. Exploratory behaviours such as rearing, walking and sniffing were most greatly reduced at one hour following surgery whereas the duration of grooming increased. By 48 h these changes had largely subsided. Results indicated mice undergoing scrotal approach surgery fared better at one hour postsurgery, but the magnitude of this was relatively insignificant compared with the overall effects of surgery. If the observed behaviour changes resulted from pain, results suggested there was no significant advantage of scrotal versus abdominal approach vasectomy. These and other recently obtained data on the effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in mice suggest considerably larger doses of these or more potent analgesics, more precise monitoring of surgical outcomes, or a combination of these factors are needed to determine the extent of pain experienced by mice undergoing vasectomy.

Anaesthesia with a combination of ketamine and medetomidine in the rabbit: effect of premedication with buprenorphine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of premedication with buprenorphine on the characteristics of anaesthesia induced with ketamine/medetomidine. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective crossover laboratory study. ANIMALS: Six female New Zealand White rabbits. METHODS: Rabbits received, on occasions separated by 7 days, either buprenorphine (0.03 mg kg(-1)) or saline subcutaneously (SC) as premedication, followed 1 hour later by SC ketamine (15 mg kg(-1)) and medetomidine (0.25 mg kg(-1)) (K/M). At pre-determined time points reflex responses and cardiopulmonary parameters were recorded and arterial blood samples taken for analysis. Total sleep time was the duration of loss of the righting reflex. Duration of surgical anaesthesia was the time of suppression of the ear pinch and pedal withdrawal reflexes. Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests were used to compare data before (T(0)) and 10 minutes after (T(10)) injection with K/M. RESULTS: All animals lost all three reflex responses within 10 minutes of injection of K/M. The duration of loss of these reflexes significantly increased in animals that received buprenorphine. At induction, animals that had received buprenorphine tended to have a lower respiration rate but there were no significant differences in arterial PCO(2), PO(2) or pH between treatments. Hypoxaemia [median PaO(2) < 6.0 kPa (45 mmHg)] developed in both treatments at T(10) but there was no significant difference between treatments. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was lower at T(10) in animals that had received buprenorphine. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Premedication with buprenorphine significantly increased the duration of anaesthesia induced by K/M, with no significant depression of respiration further to the control treatment within the first 10 minutes of anaesthesia. The MAP decreased but this was not reflected in a difference in other physiological parameters. These data show that premedication with buprenorphine, before K/M anaesthesia in the rabbit, has few negative effects and may provide beneficial analgesia.

Assessment of ketamine and medetomidine anaesthesia in the domestic rabbit.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of ketamine and two doses of medetomidine administered by two routes of injection in a genetically diverse population of rabbits. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, clinical trial. ANIMALS: One hundred and five domestic rabbits of mixed breed, sex and age. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rabbits undergoing orchiectomy or ovariohysterectomy received ketamine (15 mg kg(-1)) combined with medetomidine at 0.25 or 0.5 mg kg(-1), by subcutaneous (SC) or intramuscular (IM) injection. Anaesthesia was supplemented with 1.5-2% isoflurane when signs of regular jaw movements and/or slight limb twitching indicated inadequate anaesthesia. Heart and respiratory rate, blood oxygen saturation, end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration and rectal temperature were monitored at several time points. Duration of surgical anaesthesia and anaesthesia time were measured. At completion of surgery, atipamezole (1.0 or 0.5 mg kg(-1), IM or SC) was administered. STATISTICAL ANALYSES: MANOVA was used to compare variables over time between males and females, anaesthetic doses and routes of drug administration. RESULTS: All reflexes were lost significantly more rapidly after IM drug administration (p < 0.05). The times (in minutes) from drug injection to loss of reflexes for the respective groups were: righting reflex: 6.3 (15.0 + 0.25, SC), 5.5 (15.0 + 0.5, SC), 2.9 (15.0 + 0.25, IM) and 2.3 (15.0 + 0.5, IM); ear pinch: 9.2, 8.5, 4.8, 3.6; pedal withdrawal: 12.8, 10.4, 6.6, 5.2. Heart and respiratory rates during surgery did not differ between groups, however the highest end-tidal CO(2) concentration during surgery was significantly affected by dose, with the highest concentration occurring in group 15.0 + 0.5 IM. The number of animals requiring isoflurane tended to decrease with increasing dose of anaesthetic and significantly more females required supplementation than males (p < 0.05). Recovery from anaesthesia (return of righting reflex) was not significantly different between dose groups (p > 0.1) but was more rapid in animals given IM atipamezole (13.6 +/- 13 versus 21 +/- 17, p = 0.037). No anaesthetic-related mortality occurred and all but three animals recovered uneventfully. Five animals were killed whilst under anaesthesia because of unrelated disease. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ketamine-medetomidine combinations reliably produced surgical anaesthesia in domestic rabbits that could easily be deepened for brief periods with low concentrations of isoflurane. Subcutaneous administration was better tolerated, but the speed of induction was slower compared with IM injection. Atipamezole was an effective antagonist and produced most rapid effects when administered IM.

Comparison of electroencephalogram activity and auditory evoked responses during isoflurane and halothane anaesthesia in the rat.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the second differential index (SDI) calculated from the auditory evoked potential (AEP) and electroencephalogram (EEG) parameters: median frequency (MF), spectral edge frequency (SEF) and burst suppression rate (BSR) determined at four equivalent minimum alveolar concentrations (MAC) of isoflurane or halothane. ANIMALS: Twelve male Wistar rats weighing 418 g (SD +/- 18.4 g). METHODS: Auditory evoked potentials and EEG responses were recorded in animals implanted with electrodes at established anaesthetic concentrations. Depth of anaesthesia was assessed using the strength of the pedal withdrawal reflex (PWR), and data were analysed using repeated measures anova and paired t-tests. RESULTS: The SEF tended to decrease with increasing depth of halothane anaesthesia (F = 4.198, p = 0.05), but not with isoflurane. The MF and SDI were significantly higher during halothane than with isoflurane (F = 5.82, p = 0.036 and F = 5.263, p = 0.045, respectively) at equivalent depths of anaesthesia, and EEG burst suppression occurred at deeper planes of isoflurane but not halothane anaesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that EEG and AEP characteristics recorded at MAC equivalent concentrations were suppressed to a greater degree by isoflurane than by halothane. These findings have strong implications for research projects where EEG recordings are collected, and also cast more general doubts upon the value of such parameters for evaluating depth of isoflurane anaesthesia in rats.