Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) carry several zoonotic pathogens and because rats and humans live in close proximity in urban environments, there exists potential for transmission. To identify zoonotic agents carried by rats in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, we live-trapped 201 rats during 2005-2006 and screened them for a panel of viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Antibodies against Seoul virus (57.7%), hepatitis E virus (HEV, 73.5%), Leptospira interrogans (65.3%), Bartonella elizabethae (34.1%), and Rickettsia typhi (7.0%) were detected in Norway rats. Endoparasites, including Calodium hepatica (87.9%) and Hymenolepis sp. (34.4%), and ectoparasites (13.9%, primarily Laelaps echidninus) also were present. The risk of human exposure to these pathogens is a significant public health concern. Because these pathogens cause non-specific and often self-limiting symptoms in humans, infection in human populations is probably underdiagnosed.

SummaryUnintentional infection of laboratory rodents can compromise scientific research as well as the health of the animals and animal handlers. The source of contamination often is unknown, but may be introduced by wild rats from surrounding environments. To determine whether rats in Baltimore, Maryland, USA carry infectious agents commonly found in laboratory rodent colonies, we live-trapped 162 rats during 2005 to 2006 and screened them for a panel of viruses, bacteria and parasites. Antibodies against rat coronavirus/ sialodacryoadenitis virus (91.7%), Mycoplasma pulmonis (72.9%), cilia-associated respiratory bacillus (52.1%), rat parvovirus/rat minute virus (29.2%), Kilham rat virus (10.4%), Toolan's H-1 virus (10.4%), Sendai virus (4.2%) and Theiler's mouse encephalomyelitis virus (4.2%), were detected in wild-caught Norway rats. Antibodies against reovirus and pneumonia virus of mice were not detected in wild Norway rats. Endoparasites, including Nippostrongylus braziliensis (71.6%), Rodentolepis nana or Hymenolepis diminuta (34.4%), Hetarakis spumosa (24.1%) and Trichuris muris (14.8%), as well as ectoparasites (14.8%), were identified in wild-caught rats. The risk of pathogen transmission from wild-caught rats to laboratory colonies needs to be mitigated by minimizing exposures rather than assuming wild animals represent a minimal hazard.

Noise in animal housing facilities is an environmental variable that can affect hearing, behavior and physiology in mice. The authors measured sound levels in two rodent housing rooms (room 1 and room 2) during several periods of 24 h. Room 1, which was subject to heavy personnel traffic, contained ventilated racks and static cages that housed large numbers of mice. Room 2 was accessed by only a few staff members and contained only static cages that housed fewer mice. In both rooms, background sound levels were about 80 dB, and transient noises caused sound levels to temporarily rise 30-40 dB above the baseline level; such peaks occurred frequently during work hours (8:30 AM to 4:30 PM) and infrequently during non-work hours. Noise peaks during work hours in room 1 occurred about two times as often as in room 2 (P = 0.01). Use of changing stations located in the rooms caused background noise to increase by about 10 dB. Loud noise and noise variability were attributed mainly to personnel activity. Attempts to reduce noise should concentrate on controlling sounds produced by in-room activities and experimenter traffic; this may reduce the variability of research outcomes and improve animal welfare.Noise in rodent housing facilities is rarely controlled as an environmental variable and is often monitored only in areas where human hearing may be at risk, such as cage washing facilities. This lack of environmental control contrasts with the stringent monitoring that is standard for many other aspects of rodent housing, such as veterinary care, infection status, sanitation, heating, ventilation and air conditioning. Noise can directly affect auditory studies by damaging subjects' hearing, and it can indirectly affect many other aspects of research by causing animals physiological stress [1][2][3][4][5] . Involuntary exposure to noise is recognized as a source of distress in humans, and by extension, there may be appreciable animal welfare concerns if the noise in the animal facility is loud enough to cause stress, cause hearing damage or disrupt sleep.To our knowledge, the most recent comprehensive surveys of variability and sources of noise in rodent housing rooms were conducted between 10 and 20 years ago 1-3 . These surveys showed that noise levels varied significantly during the work day but not during non-work hours 1 . Sources of noise included mechanical systems, electronics, utilities such as running water and telephones, sanitation equipment and animal care activities 2,3 . Many of these sources produced sounds in the range of mouse hearing 1-3 .In the years since the publication of those surveys, noise-generating mechanical infectioncontrol systems such as individually ventilated cages and cage changing stations have become

Mesostigmatid mites are blood-sucking parasitic mites found in wild rodent populations. Periodically they can also become a problem for laboratory rodent colonies, particularly when building construction or renovations disturb colonies of commensal (building) rodents that had been acting as hosts. Mesostigmatid mites infest both rats and mice and, unlike the more common rodent fur mites (Myobia, Myocoptes, and Radfordia sp.), can survive for long periods in the environment and travel considerable distances in search of new hosts. They easily penetrate barrier caging systems, including individually ventilated cages, thus circumventing the usual precautions to protect rodents from infection. The two mites reported in laboratory rodent colonies, Ornithonyssus bacoti and Laelaps echidnina, also bite humans and have the potential to transmit zoonotic diseases. Once the mites gain access to a colony, eradication requires elimination of commensal rodent reservoirs in addition to insecticide treatment of both the laboratory rodents and the environment. In view of the undesirability of insecticide use in the animal facility, it is advisable to investigate the effectiveness of preventive treatments, such as environmental application of insect growth regulators or silica-based products. This article summarizes available information on mesostigmatid mites and their laboratory incursions, and provides suggestions for diagnosis, treatment, and control based on the authors experience with several outbreaks at a large academic institution..

Although some previously common infections, such as Sendai virus and Mycoplasma pulmonis, have become rare in laboratory rodents in North American research facilities, others continue to plague researchers and those responsible for providing biomedical scientists with animals free of adventitious disease. Long-recognized agents that remain in research facilities in the 21st century include parvoviruses of rats and mice, mouse rotavirus, Theilers murine encephalomyelitis virus (TMEV), mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), and pinworms. The reasons for their persistence vary with the agent. The resilience of parvoviruses, for example, is due to their resistance to inactivation, their prolonged shedding, and difficulties with detection, especially in C57BL/6 mice. Rotavirus also has marked environmental resistance, but periodic reintroduction into facilities, possibly on bags of feed, bedding, or other supplies or equipment, also seems likely. TMEV is characterized by resistance to inactivation, periodic reintroduction, and relatively long shedding periods. Although MHV remains active in the environment at most a few days, currently prevalent strains are shed in massive quantities and likely transmitted by fomites. Pinworm infestations continue because of prolonged infections, inefficient diagnosis, and the survivability of eggs of some species in the environment. For all of these agents, increases in both interinstitutional shipping and the use of immunodeficient or genetically modified rodents of unknown immune status may contribute to the problem, as might incursions by wild or feral rodents. Elimination of these old enemies will require improved detection, strict adherence to protocols designed to limit the spread of infections, and comprehensive eradication programs.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract