Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

Loo, P. L. P. Van; Mol, Jan A.; Koolhaas, Jaap M.; Zutphen, Bert F. M. Van; Baumans, V.

doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(01)00425-5

Cited by 220 publications

(235 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

210

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This pattern of effects may also suggest that subordinates were more anxious in the environment with the clean sawdust. Since aggression is known to be increased by home cage cleaning (20,64) one possibility is that, through normal husbandry practices, clean sawdust had earlier become associated with an increased severity or frequency of aggressive interactions. By definition, these encounters particularly impact on subordinate mice which suffer defeat by dominants (5,43,44,54,56).…”

Section: Defecation On Novel Versus Familiar Beddingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In their natural state, house mice (Mus domesticus) typically live in social groups (24,25,26,38,48). As would be expected, what evidence there is suggests that group housing promotes welfare in laboratories (20,61,64,65). …”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Odour cues contain a wealth of information about the donor such as gender, sexual maturity, health, social dominance, even individual identity (6,28,29,30,62,64). In caged mice, urine marks and glandular secretions impregnate the bedding which therefore becomes secondarily reinforcing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This then has implications for best husbandry practice: laboratory cage cleaning can cause an increase in aggression between group-housed mice, presumably because it disrupts the odour cues within the cage (20,64). However, transferring odours between the soiled and clean cage, e.g., on nesting material, can reduce (64) or increase (20) aggression after cleaning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Fitchett

Barnard

Cassaday

2006

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior studies using mice have shown that scent marks are an important source of information and can cause behavioural changes in other individuals. Studies have also shown that scent marks in the environment can affect the outcome of social interactions between mice. We used conditioned place preference tests to investigate whether CD-1 male mice (Mus musculus) are reinforced by olfactory cues from the home cage. Soiled bedding from the home cage was presented in the initially less preferred chamber of the apparatus to determine whether this association would reduce the unconditioned preference for one chamber over the other. We tested the effects of social rank and housing condition by comparing the performance of dyads that were polarised into dominant and subordinate relationships, both when paired and when separated, with mice that were isolated throughout. The development of conditioned place preference (CPP) supported by home cage odours was influenced by social rank but not by housing condition. Only subordinate mice showed CPP to home cage odours, and this effect was seen irrespective of whether they were housed with a dominant cage mate or alone. Neither dominant (paired or separated) nor isolated mice showed any change in their preference for the chamber associated with home cage odours. This suggests that the smell of home is a more powerful reinforcer for subordinate mice in that it can produce contextual conditioning to the environment in which it is experienced. Physiology & Behavior, 87,[955][956][957][958][959][960][961][962] Laboratory rodents spend a large amount of time in their home cage environment.How do they like it? It is known that the home cage can act as an effective reinforcer for mice tested in a radial maze procedure (45). However, very few studies have investigated how mice rate the home cage environment relative to alternatives, but see (59,60).An important aspect of the home environment is whether the animal is housed singly or in a group. In their natural state, house mice (Mus domesticus) typically live in social groups (24,25,26,38,48). As would be expected, what evidence there is suggests that group housing promotes welfare in laboratories (20,61,64,65).

show abstract

Section: Defecation On Novel Versus Familiar Beddingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Fitchett

Barnard

Cassaday

2006

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, rats use urine to signal dominance and mark out territories (Krames et al 1969, Garcia-Brull et al 1993, so when these signals are removed, aggression might result. Indeed, in male mice, aggression peaks after cage-cleaning (Gray & Hurst 1995, Van Loo et al 2000, and this can be serious. In contrast, familiar rats tend not to wound each other, and their apparently aggressive 'skirmishing' behaviour can often be a form of play (Pellis & Pellis 1987), and therefore presumably neither very stressful nor injurious.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term effects of cage-cleaning frequency and bedding type on laboratory rat health, welfare, and handleability: a cross-laboratory study

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryCage-cleaning is necessary for a hygienic environment, but since rats communicate using scent, they might suffer if their cages are cleaned too frequently. Male rats (Sprague-Dawley and Wistar) were kept for five months across four animal units. Their cages were cleaned twice-weekly, weekly, or every two weeks, and contained either aspen woodchips or absorbent paper bedding. Aggression, injuries and general health, weight gain, chromodacryorrhoea (a stress-related Harderian gland secretion), handleability, and lung pathology were monitored, as was in-cage ammonia. Cleaning frequency had no clear impact on rat welfare, although frequent cleaning decreased ammonia concentrations and handleability, and non-aggressive skirmishing was highest in weekly cleaned rats. Surprisingly, bedding type did not affect ammonia, but all ammonia readings were unexpectedly low. However, rats kept on aspen had greater sneezing rates and lung pathology than those on paper bedding, but also had higher body weights. The results raise concerns about aspen bedding, which is relatively inert compared with other wood beddings, but nevertheless more harmful than paper. Animal unit significantly affected eight of the 11 variables tested, having interactive effects on five of them. The study also demonstrates the interactive effects of different animal units, casting doubt on the feasibility of standardization. We explored multiple variables of interest, so all findings require confirmation through further work. Nevertheless, cage-cleaning rates seem to affect socially housed male rats little, while bedding type has important effects on rat health.

show abstract

The laboratory mouse

Pritchett‐Corning,

Garner

2024

The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of Laboratory and Other Research Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modulation of aggression in male mice: influence of group size and cage size

Cited by 220 publications

References 26 publications

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

There's no place like home: Cage odours and place preference in subordinate CD-1 male mice

Long-term effects of cage-cleaning frequency and bedding type on laboratory rat health, welfare, and handleability: a cross-laboratory study

The laboratory mouse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About