The laboratory mouse is a key player in preclinical oncology research. However, emphasis of techniques reporting at the expense of critical animal-related detail compromises research integrity, ...animal welfare, and, ultimately, the translation potential of mouse-based oncology models. To evaluate current reporting practices, we performed a cross-sectional survey of 400 preclinical oncology studies using mouse solid-tumour models. Articles published in 2020 were selected from 20 journals that specifically endorsed the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) preclinical reporting guidelines. We assessed reporting compliance for 22 items in five domains: ethical oversight assurance, animal signalment, husbandry, welfare, and euthanasia. Data were analysed using hierarchical generalised random-intercept models, clustered on journal. Overall, reporting of animal-related items was poor. Median compliance over all categories was 23%. There was little or no association between extent of reporting compliance and journal or journal impact factor. Age, sex, and source were reported most frequently, but verifiable strain information was reported for <10% of studies. Animal husbandry, housing environment, and welfare items were reported by <5% of studies. Fewer than one in four studies reported analgesia use, humane endpoints, or an identifiable method of euthanasia. Of concern was the poor documentation of ethical oversight information. Fewer than one in four provided verifiable approval information, and almost one in ten reported no information, or information that was demonstrably false. Mice are the “invisible actors” in preclinical oncology research. In spite of widespread endorsement of reporting guidelines, adherence to reporting guidelines on the part of authors is poor and journals fail to enforce guideline reporting standards. In particular, the inadequate reporting of key animal-related items severely restricts the utility and translation potential of mouse models, and results in research waste. Both investigators and journals have the ethical responsibility to ensure animals are not wasted in uninformative research.
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.
Refined handling improves laboratory mouse welfare and research outcomes when compared to traditional tail handling, yet implementation does not seem to be widespread. Refined handling includes ...picking up a mouse using a tunnel or cupped hands. The aim of this study was to determine the current prevalence of and beliefs towards refined handling using the theory of planned behavior. It was predicted that refined handling prevalence is low compared to traditional handling methods, and its implementation is determined by individual and institutional beliefs. Research personnel were recruited via online convenience sampling through email listservs and social media. A total of 261 participants in diverse roles (e.g. veterinarians, managers, caretakers, researchers, etc.) responded primarily from the USA (79%) and academic institutions (61%) Participants were surveyed about their current use, knowledge, and beliefs about refined handling. Quantitative data were analyzed via descriptive statistics and generalised regression. Qualitative data were analyzed by theme. Research personnel reported low levels of refined handling implementation, with only 10% of participants using it exclusively and a median estimate of only 10% of institutional mice being handled with refined methods. Individually, participants had positive attitudes, neutral norms, and positive control beliefs about refined handling. Participants’ intention to provide refined handling in the future was strongly associated with their attitudes, norms, and control beliefs (p<0.01). Participants believed barriers included jumpy mice, perceived incompatibility with restraint, lack of time, and other personnel. However, participants also believed refined handling was advantageous to mouse welfare, handling ease, personnel, and research. Although results from this survey indicate that current refined handling prevalence is low in this sample, personnel believe it has important benefits, and future use is associated with their beliefs about the practice. People who believed refined handling was good, felt pressure to use it, and were confident in their use reported higher implementation. Increased refined handling could be encouraged through education on misconceptions, highlighting advantages, and addressing important barriers.
The laboratory mouse is a key player in preclinical oncology research. However, emphasis of techniques reporting at the expense of critical animal-related detail compromises research integrity, ...animal welfare, and, ultimately, the translation potential of mouse-based oncology models. To evaluate current reporting practices, we performed a cross-sectional survey of 400 preclinical oncology studies using mouse solid-tumour models. Articles published in 2020 were selected from 20 journals that specifically endorsed the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) preclinical reporting guidelines. We assessed reporting compliance for 22 items in five domains: ethical oversight assurance, animal signalment, husbandry, welfare, and euthanasia. Data were analysed using hierarchical generalised random-intercept models, clustered on journal. Overall, reporting of animal-related items was poor. Median compliance over all categories was 23%. There was little or no association between extent of reporting compliance and journal or journal impact factor. Age, sex, and source were reported most frequently, but verifiable strain information was reported for <10% of studies. Animal husbandry, housing environment, and welfare items were reported by <5% of studies. Fewer than one in four studies reported analgesia use, humane endpoints, or an identifiable method of euthanasia. Of concern was the poor documentation of ethical oversight information. Fewer than one in four provided verifiable approval information, and almost one in ten reported no information, or information that was demonstrably false. Mice are the “invisible actors” in preclinical oncology research. In spite of widespread endorsement of reporting guidelines, adherence to reporting guidelines on the part of authors is poor and journals fail to enforce guideline reporting standards. In particular, the inadequate reporting of key animal-related items severely restricts the utility and translation potential of mouse models, and results in research waste. Both investigators and journals have the ethical responsibility to ensure animals are not wasted in uninformative research.
An important aspect of the development of cortical prostheses is the enhancement of suitable implantable microelectrode arrays for chronic neural recording. The objective of this study was to ...investigate the recording performance of silicon-substrate micromachined probes in terms of reliability and signal quality. These probes were found to consistently and reliably provide high-quality spike recordings over extended periods of time lasting up to 127 days. In a consecutive series of ten rodents involving 14 implanted probes, 13/14 (93%) of the devices remained functional throughout the assessment period. More than 90% of the probe sites consistently recorded spike activity with signal-to-noise ratios sufficient for amplitudes and waveform-based discrimination. Histological analysis of the tissue surrounding the probes generally indicated the development of a stable interface sufficient for sustained electrical contact. The results of this study demonstrate that these planar silicon probes are suitable for long-term recording in the cerebral cortex and provide an effective platform technology foundation for microscale intracortical neural interfaces for use in humans.
Sex bias in biomedical and natural science research has been prevalent for decades. In many cases, the female estrous cycle was thought to be too complex an issue to model for, and it was thought to ...be simpler to only use males in studies. At times, particularly when studying efficacy and safety of new therapeutics, this sex bias has resulted in over- and under-medication with associated deleterious side effects in women. Many sex differences have been recognized that are unrelated to hormonal variation occurring during the estrous cycle. Sex bias also creates animal welfare challenges related to animal over-production and wastage, insufficient consideration of welfare (and scientific) impact related to differential housing of male vs female animals within research facilities, and a lack of understanding regarding differential requirements for pain recognition and alleviation in male versus female animals. Although many funding and government agencies require both sexes to be studied in biomedical research, many disparities remain in practice. This requires further enforcement of expectations by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee when reviewing protocols, research groups when writing grants, planning studies, and conducting research, and scientific journals and reviewers to ensure that sex bias policies are enforced.
One of the most significant challenges facing investigators, laboratory animal veterinarians, and IACUCs, is how to balance appropriate analgesic use, animal welfare, and analgesic impact on ...experimental results. This is particularly true for in vivo studies on immune system function
and inflammatory disease. Often times the effects of analgesic drugs on a particular immune function or model are incomplete or don't exist. Further complicating the picture is evidence of the very tight integration and bidirectional functionality between the immune system and branches of
the nervous system involved in nociception and pain. These relationships have advanced the concept of understanding pain as a protective neuroimmune function and recognizing pathologic pain as a neuroimmune disease. This review strives to summarize extant literature on the effects of pain
and analgesia on immune system function and inflammation in the context of preclinical in vivo studies. The authors hope this work will help to guide selection of analgesics for preclinical studies of inflammatory disease and immune system function.
A common dilemma faced by all animal bioethics committees arises when exceptions are proposed to the use of analgesics in painful procedures. The committee and researcher must weigh the possible ...confounding effects of including additional drugs (analgesics) in their treatment regimen
against the moral obligation to perform humane research. Often neglected in these considerations are the potential confounding effects of unrelieved pain and consistency with pain-relieving practices in human medicine. In this review, we summarize what is currently known regarding the molecular
and physiologic effects of pain and analgesics in common animal models used across several therapeutic areas. This work is intended to help provide guidance and assurance that a comprehensive approach has been taken when contemplating how pain relief will be applied in animal research protocols.
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 weaning 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.
PDF
