The Pen Is Milder Than the Blade: Identification Marking Mice Using Ink on the Tail Appears More Humane Than Ear-Punching Even with Local Anaesthetic.

Identification marking mice commonly involves ear-punching with or without anaesthetic, or tail-marking with ink. To identify which is most humane, we marked weanling male BALB/c mice using ear-punching (EP), ear-punching with anaesthetic EMLATM cream (EP+A), or permanent marker pen (MP). We compared marked mice, unmarked cagemates, and control mice (n = 12-13/group) for 5 weeks, reapplying MP weekly. Treatment-blind observations following marking showed that EP and EP+A mice were allogroomed (p < 0.001) and sniffed (p < 0.001) by their cagemates more than MP and control mice were. EP+A mice groomed themselves (p < 0.001) and their ears (p < 0.001) ~5 times more than most other mice; their cagemates also increased self-grooming (p < 0.001). Unmarked MP cagemates (p = 0.001), and possibly EP+A mice (p = 0.034; a nonsignificant trend), grimaced the most. The following day, half the EP+A mice showed hyponeophagia versus no MP and control mice (p = 0.001). Over the 5 weeks, EP mice approached the handler significantly less than unmarked cagemates did (p < 0.001). Across weeks, defecation during marking of MP mice decreased (p < 0.001). Treatment showed no effects on immediate responses during marking, aggression, bodyweight, plus-maze behaviour or corticosterone. MP mice showed no differences from controls, whilst EP and EP+A mice showed altered behaviour, so ink-marking may be the more humane identification method.

Olfactory variation in mouse husbandry and its implications for refinement and standardization: UK survey of non-animal scents.

With their highly sensitive olfactory system, the behaviour and physiology of mice are not only influenced by the scents of conspecifics and other species, but also by many other chemicals in the environment. The constraints of laboratory housing limit a mouse's capacity to avoid aversive odours that could be present in the environment. Potentially odorous items routinely used for husbandry procedures, such as sanitizing products and gloves, could be perceived by mice as aversive or attractive, and affect their behaviour, physiology and experimental results. A survey was sent to research institutions in the UK to enquire about husbandry practices that could impact on the olfactory environment of the mouse. Responses were obtained from 80 individuals working in 51 institutions. Husbandry practices varied considerably. Seventy percent of respondents reported always wearing gloves for handling mice, with nitrile being the most common glove material (94%) followed by latex (23%) and vinyl (14%). Over six different products were listed for cleaning surfaces, floors, anaesthesia and euthanasia chambers and behavioural apparatus. In all cases Trigene™ (now called Anistel™) was the most common cleaning product used (43, 41, 40 and 49%, respectively). Depending on the attribute considered, between 7 and 19% of respondents thought that cleaning products definitely, or were likely to, have strong effects on standardization, mouse health, physiology or behaviour. Understanding whether and how these odours affect mouse welfare will help to refine mouse husbandry and experimental procedures through practical recommendations, to improve the quality of life of laboratory animals and the experimental data obtained.

Olfaction variation in mouse husbandry and its implications for refinement and standardization: UK survey of animal scents.

Olfaction plays a crucial role in mouse communication, providing information about genetic identity, physiological status of conspecifics and alerting mice to potential predators. Scents of animal origin can trigger physiological and behavioural responses that could affect experimental responses and impact positively or negatively on mouse welfare. Additionally, differing olfactory profiles could help explain variation in results between laboratories. A survey was sent to animal research units in the UK to investigate potential transfer of scents of animal origin during routine husbandry procedures, and responses were obtained from animal care workers and researchers using mice in 51 institutions. The results reveal great diversity between animal units regarding the relevant husbandry routines covered. Most [71%] reported housing non-breeding male and female mice in the same room, with 76% reporting that hands were not washed and gloves not changed between handling male and female mice. The most commonly reported species housed in the same facility as mice was the rat (91%), and 41% of respondents were aware that scents from rats could affect mice. Changing of gloves between handling mice and other species was reported by 79% of respondents. Depending on the aspect considered, between 18 and 33% of respondents believed human and non-human animal odours would strongly affect mouse physiology, behaviour or standardization, while approximately 32-54% believed these effects would be weak. This indicates uncertainty regarding the significance of these factors. Understanding and controlling these practices could reduce unwanted variability in experimental results and maximize welfare.