ABSTRACT
Pigs are raised on a global scale for commercial or research purposes and often experience pain as a by product of management practices and procedures performed. Therefore, ensuring pain can be effectively identified and monitored in these settings is critical to ensure appropriate pig welfare. The Unesp-Botucatu Pig Composite Acute Pain Scale (UPAPS) was validated to diagnose pain in pre-weaned and weaned pigs using a combination of six behavioral items. To date, statistical weighting of supervised and unsupervised algorithms was not compared in ranking pain-altered behaviors in swine has not been performed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify if supervised and unsupervised algorithms with different levels of complexity can improve UPAPS pain diagnosis in pigs undergoing castration. The predictive capacity of the algorithms was evaluated by the area under the curve (AUC). Lower complexity algorithms containing fewer pain-altered behaviors had similar AUC (90.1-90.6) than algorithms containing five (89.18-91.24) and UPAPS (90.58). In conclusion, utilizing a short version of the UPAPS did not influence the predictive capacity of the scale, and therefore it may be easier to apply and be implemented consistently to monitor pain in commercial and experimental settings.
Subject(s)
Acute Pain , Orchiectomy , Male , Animals , Swine , Algorithms , Pain Measurement/methodsABSTRACT
Statins are 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor drugs that lead to serum-cholesterol-lowering effects. Rosuvastatin, a third-generation statin, has shown better results in reducing cholesterol concentrations when compared to other widely prescribed statins. Recent studies by our group reported that rosuvastatin impairs reproductive function in rats possibly by disrupting the reproductive-endocrine axis. In this study, we evaluated whether rosuvastatin presents estrogenic or antiestrogenic effects, by an in vivo uterotrophic assay in rats, and investigated the direct effect of this drug upon rat uterine tissue contractility both in non-gravid and gravid periods. Rosuvastatin exposure in vivo at doses of 0 (control), 3, and 10 mg/kg/d was not associated with estrogenic or antiestrogenic effects on uterine tissue. However, in vivo (doses of 0, 3, and 10 mg/kg/d) and ex vivo (concentrations of 0, 1, 10, and 100 µg/mL) exposures to this drug were related to alterations in uterine basal contraction pattern. Furthermore, in vivo and ex vivo rosuvastatin exposures potentially modulate the action of uterine contraction inducers carbachol, norepinephrine, and prostaglandin E2. Thus, rosuvastatin can affect uterine physiology not necessarily by an endocrine mechanism related to the estrogen signaling, but possibly by its pleiotropic effects, with indirect tissue and cellular interactions, since in vivo and ex vivo exposures of uterine fragments to rosuvastatin presented different responses in uterine contractile parameters, which require further studies upon the precise mechanism of action of this drug in female reproductive function.
